Straight-ins at uncontrolled airports? [Archive]

Kyle Boatright

February 6th 07, 01:20 AM

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.
>
> I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
> at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?
>
> Danny Deger

As has been pointed out, there is nothing "illegal" about straight in
approaches. The issue is whether you are really, really sure you are not
disrupting other aircraft operating in the standard pattern.

Also, there are people out there in camouflaged Cubs which don't have
radios. No matter how many calls you make, they won't hear you. So
(hypothetically), your safety could depend on you seeing an aircraft that is
very hard to see against certain backgrounds. Alternately, you are depending
on the pilot of that airplane (which has poor external pattern visibility)
seeing you.

From my perspective, traffic patterns are spooky even without people flying
non-standard patterns. There is simply no way to be 100% certain you've seen
all the traffic. So I do everything I can to increase my chances of seeing
everyone else and making sure they see me. That means standard pattern
entries...

Dave[_5_]

February 6th 07, 01:42 AM

> I might add, that pilots doing a straight-in landing for Instrument
> practice, should be sure to announce their intentions and distance....
> a lot. Too often I hear something like "Podunk Traffic, Flyswatter
> 123 inbound VOR-A, passing Bipsy. [Where "BIPSY" or whatever is an
> inbound instrument waypoint.] Most VFR pilots have no clue what or
> where these codes and waypoints are. This makes for nasty close
> calls on the base and final legs.
>
> Please always add something like "Ten miles north, straight-in for
> landing runway 18".
>
> Kev

On top of all that, what if the instrument approach happens to be
downwind, and the pilot never intended to land anyway (planned missed
approach)? It makes a real mess of the traffic flow. Does everybody
else have to get out of their way? I don't think so.

IMHO these folks have no business flying practice approaches if there
is any significant
traffic at the (uncontrolled) airport in question.

150flivver

February 6th 07, 01:42 AM

On Feb 5, 7:19 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Danny Deger" > wrote:
>
> > I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.
>
> > I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
> > at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?
>
> > Danny Deger
>
> I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
> traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
> Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
> the ground fastest.

Yeah, there's nothing like having 4 planes in the pattern and a 4 ship
of something going 60 knots faster than anyone else call initial and
break onto the downwind. Everyone else, break out of the pattern so
mister 4-ship can land his formation quickly and taxi together to the
coffee shop. I don't have problems with airplanes doing an overhead
if the pattern is empty or there's a tower to call the break but doing
it at a pilot controlled airfield with multiple aircraft in the box
pattern is asking for trouble.

Ron Lee

February 6th 07, 02:01 AM

"150flivver" > wrote:
>>
>> I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
>> traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
>> Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
>> the ground fastest.
>
>Yeah, there's nothing like having 4 planes in the pattern and a 4 ship
>of something going 60 knots faster than anyone else call initial and
>break onto the downwind. Everyone else, break out of the pattern so
>mister 4-ship can land his formation quickly and taxi together to the
>coffee shop. I don't have problems with airplanes doing an overhead
>if the pattern is empty or there's a tower to call the break but doing
>it at a pilot controlled airfield with multiple aircraft in the box
>pattern is asking for trouble.
>

Yea, what is with the slow traffic making B52 patterns? The RV 4
shipwill have landed before the C172 turns final. Heck, yesterday
after returning from Cabella in Sydney NE my 2 ship (RVs) had to fall
in behind a Warrior. How humiliating.

:)

Ron Lee

February 6th 07, 02:57 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> They've never been prohibited (at least in the U.S.).
>
> --

Say's a non pilot...

Mxsmanic

February 6th 07, 03:05 AM

BT writes:

> Say's a non pilot...

This non-pilot is right, and most of the so-called pilots are saying
the same thing. Show me the regulation that prohibits them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Kev

February 6th 07, 03:22 AM

On Feb 5, 8:12 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> > Exactly. They need to announce down to about every mile to the field
> > on a straight-in. I've had someone announce they were twenty miles
> > out on a straight-in, so I turned base. Lo and behold they were
> > actually one mile out... and cut me off.
>
> Sounds like you were cutting him off. Did you scan for traffic?

Obviously I scanned for traffic, which is why I'm still here ;-)

He claimed to be twenty miles out, or about 10 minutes away at
Cherokee speeds. Plenty of time for me to land first. However, he
was much, much closer. Apparently he was overloaded doing the
practice approach.

In the pattern, it's easier to see where someone is. Straight in, you
often just have to believe what they say. (That is, trust but
verify ;-)

Kev

[email protected]

February 6th 07, 03:28 AM

On Feb 5, 1:52 pm, "Jay Beckman" > wrote:
> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.
>
> > I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
> > at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?
>
> > Danny Deger
>
> Straight In has never been "disapproved."
>
> It may not, however, be the best way to arrive.
>
> YMMV,
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ

It may not have been disapproved by official regulation.
It is disapproved by many pilots, though. ;<)
Especially me. I have enough to deal with when everyone, including
me, is where they belong.

Jim Burns

February 6th 07, 03:59 AM

To me the key is nobody bending metal or ending up dead.

Even if the pattern isn't full, maybe there's only one guy on downwind,
that's all it takes for me to take another option of either announcing an
upwind opposite the downwind traffic or a crossover to the downwind, what
ever allows me to keep my eyes on him and other possible traffic as I
transition into the pattern.

Something else I try to practice is that when transferred to the local
traffic advisory, I not only announce my position on the approach including
altitudes, but I use terms that VFR or non local pilots in the area will
understand. I think this is an area where some of the pilots such as Jay
refers to can improve their SOP. Granted, when the pattern is full, this
maybe too much info when everybody's trying to announce their positions and
intentions, again, a pilot must be able to adjust to the circumstances.

For those on downwind encountering another pilot performing a straight in
approach, don't forget about the ability to extend your downwind leg. Don't
let yourself get so locked into your "standard" pattern of turning base when
45 degrees from X at Xagl at Xrpms and Xkts that you find yourself flustered
and brain locked when an approaching airplane announces something that you
aren't expecting. Standard procedures are safe procedures, especially at
night or at unfamiliar airports but leave some flexibility in your bag of
tricks for the unexpected. The same can be said for an unexpected aircraft
entering an extended base in front of you while you are on downwind. Be
ready. Have a plan but be ready, willing, and able to change your plan.
Play 'what-if'. What are your options? Which is the safest? That's the
option that you want to be willing to use, even if the other guy isn't.

JimB

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
> news:ELCdnYJpMrZIJFrYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
>> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.
>>>
>>> I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now
>>> approved at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I assume you are not trying to win friends and influance people?
>
> I am gleening from this thread the state of straight-ins has not changed
> over the years. To me a key is how busy the pattern is. If I am lined up
> at night, I like the straight-in. It is pretty rare to have a full
> pattern at night.
>
> Danny Deger
>>
>> --
>> Geoff
>> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
>> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
>> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
>>
>
>

Orval Fairbairn

February 6th 07, 04:16 AM

In article . com>,
"150flivver" > wrote:

> On Feb 5, 7:19 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Danny Deger" > wrote:
> >
> > > I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.
> >
> > > I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
> > > at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?
> >
> > > Danny Deger
> >
> > I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
> > traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
> > Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
> > the ground fastest.
>
> Yeah, there's nothing like having 4 planes in the pattern and a 4 ship
> of something going 60 knots faster than anyone else call initial and
> break onto the downwind. Everyone else, break out of the pattern so
> mister 4-ship can land his formation quickly and taxi together to the
> coffee shop. I don't have problems with airplanes doing an overhead
> if the pattern is empty or there's a tower to call the break but doing
> it at a pilot controlled airfield with multiple aircraft in the box
> pattern is asking for trouble.

If the 4-ship is calling initial, they are probably 2-3 miles out,
meaning that they are at least a minute from break, allowing a
reasonably competent C150 or C172 to complete downwind, fly base and
land well before they even get there.

It is those "professional pilots in training" that insist on
"stabilized" approaches with 2-mile finals in a C172 dragging at 80
knots who really clog things up.

ArtP

February 6th 07, 04:38 AM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:16:49 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>It is those "professional pilots in training" that insist on
>"stabilized" approaches with 2-mile finals in a C172 dragging at 80
>knots who really clog things up.

One of the reasons they are on long finals is they followed
McNicholl's advice to extend downwind to give the guy on a straight in
approach the right of way. Once a crowded pattern extends it won't
pull back in until all of the traffic is cleared. With a few people
doing touch and go's that won't be happening anytime soon.

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 06:46 AM

On 5 Feb 2007 19:28:37 -0800, wrote:

>On Feb 5, 1:52 pm, "Jay Beckman" > wrote:
>> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.
>>
>> > I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
>> > at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?
>>
>> > Danny Deger
>>
>> Straight In has never been "disapproved."
>>
>> It may not, however, be the best way to arrive.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>> Jay Beckman
>> PP-ASEL
>> Chandler, AZ
>
>It may not have been disapproved by official regulation.
>It is disapproved by many pilots, though. ;<)
>Especially me. I have enough to deal with when everyone, including
>me, is where they belong.

With Jets coming in, if they flew the pattern or not, they'd be so far
out no one would know the difference here.

Training planes fly a fairly tight pattern.
High performance is a bit wider and longer,
Twins are wider and longer still.
Big twins, still more and Jets are much farther out.

Of course, here we have on instrument approach that is half pattern
altitude and comes in on a 137 degree heading while our runways are
06/24 and 18/36. The GPS approaches to 06 and 24 might as well be
straight in. The IAF is 11 miles out with the FAF being 5.1 from the
end of the runway. (all in a straight line)

Late in the day it can get pretty busy so any one in the pattern needs
their head on a swivel. With the different class planes and three
approaches, traffic may be *anywhere*
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 06:53 AM

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:33:48 -0800, Jim > wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Straight in approaches have always been acceptable as long
>>> as you can do it safely, maintain visual, give right of way
>>> to lower aircraft, be aware of A/C in the patten, announce
>>> your position/intentions, etc. etc. etc. It is highly
>>> recommended to do a standard pattern entry to the downwind
>>> leg of the pattern.
>>>
>>
>>An aircraft on final has the right-of-way.
>
>Yes. This is particularly wonderful when a pilot announces a
>five-mile straight-in final to an uncontrolled field.

On the GPS for 06 or 24 five miles for me is a tad over 2 minutes.
With a Jet it maybe considerably less. Most of the jets fly the GPS
vertical profile so they are straight in for 11 miles. I don't think
I've seen a jet fly the VOR which is a circle to land, since the GPS
approaches were authorized.

Besides a jet on a circle to land on 24 at 500 AGL might be noticed by
the neighbors. OTOH I've seen some mighty big twins do that.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 06:55 AM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:10:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Yes. This is particularly wonderful when a pilot announces a
>> five-mile straight-in final to an uncontrolled field.
>>
>
>How is it wonderful?
>

I know if I have time enough to land if he's telling the truth<:-))
OTOH that's just inside the FAF and it might be me.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 07:01 AM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:09:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> As others have told you, it's never been illegal to do a straight-in
>> approach.
>>
>> However, PLEASE try to refrain from doing them when the pattern is
>> full. Not only is it rude, it's often dangerous to attempt when
>> you've got three on downwind, one on base, and one already on final.
>> I see this happen all too often -- almost invariably by the charter
>> guys, who have a paying guy in the back that's late for his meeting --
>> and it results in frayed nerves and flared tempers.
>>
>
>Simple solution. The straight-in should follow the aircraft on base and the
>aircraft on downwind alter their patterns to follow the straight-in.
>

It's usually not complicated if people are paying attention.
If I can fit between sky divers and jump planes at Zypher Hills I
should be able to adjust to either have enough room to land and clear
the runway ahead of the guy on long final, or extend my down wind to
get behind him.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 07:09 AM

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:59:57 -0600, "Jim Burns"
> wrote:

>To me the key is nobody bending metal or ending up dead.
>
>Even if the pattern isn't full, maybe there's only one guy on downwind,
>that's all it takes for me to take another option of either announcing an
>upwind opposite the downwind traffic or a crossover to the downwind, what
>ever allows me to keep my eyes on him and other possible traffic as I
>transition into the pattern.

There is little that scares me more than some one flying an upwind.
They quite often end up crossing just off the end of the runway right
where I hit pattern altitude on climb out and they do it in my blind
spot. It's even worse when taking off on 06 when the sun is about 20
to 25 degrees above the horizon.

invariably they announce cross wind (if they announce) without saying
where. That can make for a lot of faces looking for traffic that may
or may not be very close. Couple of times over the years I've had one
seemingly pop out of now where close enough to count rivets.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 07:13 AM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:38:55 GMT, ArtP >
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:16:49 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:
>
>
>>It is those "professional pilots in training" that insist on
>>"stabilized" approaches with 2-mile finals in a C172 dragging at 80
>>knots who really clog things up.
>
>
>One of the reasons they are on long finals is they followed
>McNicholl's advice to extend downwind to give the guy on a straight in
>approach the right of way. Once a crowded pattern extends it won't
>pull back in until all of the traffic is cleared. With a few people
>doing touch and go's that won't be happening anytime soon.

If the guy ahead of you is turning base two miles ahead and you don't
have any one close in on final just rollinto tha tight , slipping
U-turn to the end of the runway, and you'll be back to the hangar
before the 172 touches down. It all depends on the pilots and what
they are flying. If they know their planes and can be flexible (think
Oshkosh) they can all fit together nicely.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Ron Natalie

February 6th 07, 12:26 PM

Jim wrote:

> Yes. This is particularly wonderful when a pilot announces a
> five-mile straight-in final to an uncontrolled field.

Unless they're a jet, if they are five miles out, they aren't
even yet in the "vicinity" of the airport. You can probably
land three or four planes from the pattern ahead of them.

The only time the plane on final having the ROW is an issue
is when he is close enough to a plane on base to cause a
conflict.

ArtP

February 6th 07, 02:13 PM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:13:56 -0500, Roger >
wrote:

>If the guy ahead of you is turning base two miles ahead and you don't
>have any one close in on final just rollinto tha tight , slipping
>U-turn to the end of the runway, and you'll be back to the hangar
>before the 172 touches down.

If you are 2 miles behind the plane ahead on downwind than you don't
have a crowded pattern and there is probably no need to cut in front.

F. Reid

February 6th 07, 04:06 PM

On Feb 6, 12:13 am, Roger > wrote:
> If the guy ahead of you is turning base two miles ahead and you don't
> have any one close in on final just rollinto tha tight , slipping
> U-turn to the end of the runway, and you'll be back to the hangar
> before the 172 touches down. It all depends on the pilots and what
> they are flying. If they know their planes and can be flexible (think
> Oshkosh) they can all fit together nicely.

Roger, you stud jock.Lets all throw standard patterns out the window
and fly like we are at Oshkosh.You have made me realise that I dont
really know my airplane.Thanks.')

>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

F. Reid

February 6th 07, 04:55 PM

On Feb 5, 3:30 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> However, PLEASE try to refrain from doing them when the pattern is
> full. Not only is it rude, it's often dangerous to attempt when
> you've got three on downwind, one on base, and one already on final.
> I see this happen all too often -- almost invariably by the charter
> guys, who have a paying guy in the back that's late for his meeting --
> and it results in frayed nerves and flared tempers.

Lets all pick on the charter guys ').Sometimes, it is easier (when you
look at the comparitive speeds and altitudes) to just fly a straight
in.Of course, this is not always the case, and people should not be
rude or disrespectful about it.Try this the next time you are out
there, fly your downwind at 1500 AGL and 190kts, then try to figure
out where YOU will fit into the traffic patern.I bet you will find it
is not so easy.Fortunatly most all of the GA guys understand this and
are VERY helpful.IMO the transport guys appreciate it very much.But
then there is those pesky charter guys (Kidding).
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 11:00 PM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:26:01 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Jim wrote:
>
>> Yes. This is particularly wonderful when a pilot announces a
>> five-mile straight-in final to an uncontrolled field.
>
>Unless they're a jet, if they are five miles out, they aren't
>even yet in the "vicinity" of the airport. You can probably
>land three or four planes from the pattern ahead of them.

You could at least squeeze in one eve if it were a jet.
I've had approach at KMBS ask me to keep the speed up as "long as
practicable" as there was a DC-9 sneaking up behind.

I've also received an "expedite" as I took the runway as there was a
jet on 5 mile final. It didn't bother me, but it dure made my
passenger nervous. This was another DC-9 at LAN

>
>The only time the plane on final having the ROW is an issue
>is when he is close enough to a plane on base to cause a
>conflict.

When I anounce at the FAF I'm roughly five miles out and at my
approach speed (120 MPH) that should be 2 1/2 minutes to the runway.
Unless they are really timid pilots they should be able to squeeze in
one or two ahead of me, unless first guy on the runway lands right on
the end and then proceedes to taxi the full length of the runway at a
fast walk. Now that can really stretch out the pattern.<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 11:16 PM

On 6 Feb 2007 08:06:29 -0800, "F. Reid" >
wrote:

>On Feb 6, 12:13 am, Roger > wrote:
>> If the guy ahead of you is turning base two miles ahead and you don't
>> have any one close in on final just rollinto tha tight , slipping
>> U-turn to the end of the runway, and you'll be back to the hangar
>> before the 172 touches down. It all depends on the pilots and what
>> they are flying. If they know their planes and can be flexible (think
>> Oshkosh) they can all fit together nicely.
>
>Roger, you stud jock.Lets all throw standard patterns out the window
>and fly like we are at Oshkosh.You have made me realise that I dont
>really know my airplane.Thanks.')

Well, then get out there and practice<:-))

I'm not advocating any aerobatic maneuvers to get to the runway, but
far too many of us get stuck in the "stabilized pattern" mind set. If
we fly much we are going to get into places where the stabilized
pattern is not an option and to fly one takes practice.

Besides the above does not violate a standard pattern. It has a down
wind, base, and final although short.
Put a Cub, 172, Bonanza, Baron, and Citation on down wind and you
have the same thing. The Cub is close in while the Bo, Baron, and
Citation will be spaced farther out. They could all be on down wind
side by side and still make normal landings without having to make
much if any allowance for the other planes. If the guy ahead flys a
base 2 miles out you are under no requirement to follow him around
that extra 4 or 5 miles. The key is to not causing any conflict. Add
to that the ability to be flexible can shorten that pattern back up
after it has stretched way out.

The same is true if some one anounces they are on a 5 or 10 mile
final. IF you are on down wind you can sill fly your normal pattern
and even land ahead of them if it does not cause a conflict. However
if you are in a Cub and he's flying a Citation it'd probably be a good
idea to plan on coming in behind him.

Just use common sense. If you can land without doing anything drastic
or cutting any one off it is quite safe and legal.

>
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 6th 07, 11:34 PM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:13:18 GMT, ArtP >
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:13:56 -0500, Roger >
>wrote:
>
>
>>If the guy ahead of you is turning base two miles ahead and you don't
>>have any one close in on final just rollinto tha tight , slipping
>>U-turn to the end of the runway, and you'll be back to the hangar
>>before the 172 touches down.
>
>If you are 2 miles behind the plane ahead on downwind than you don't
>have a crowded pattern and there is probably no need to cut in front.

If he's 2 miles out you aren't cutting in front of him. It's quite
likely he'll never even see you. We get some that fly patterns so wide
we have planes taking off and landing thinking the other guy was just
passing through.

We have crop dusters flying out of 3BS regularly in the summer. You
get used to taking what ever space is available. It's not uncommon to
be on a 1/2 mile final and have a crop duster take off and it's no
biggie even when landing the Deb. I know he'll be off the runway and
making or having made his turn away from the runway before the Deb's
wheels touch down. However if a transient is coming in or a local who
flies little that could be traumatic and the guys try to accommodate
unrecognized N numbers on the cautious side.

If a student pilot lets them know they are a student the guys give
them extra room. Most of us try not to slow their operation down
meaning we seldom get to fly a stabilized pattern.

When the airport is busy those who fly a base 2 or more miles out are
likely to find the pattern has stayed at it's regular size, but will
try to accommodate their "straight in" final<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Blueskies

February 7th 07, 02:36 AM

"F. Reid" > wrote in message oups.com...
: On Feb 5, 3:30 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
: >
: > However, PLEASE try to refrain from doing them when the pattern is
: > full. Not only is it rude, it's often dangerous to attempt when
: > you've got three on downwind, one on base, and one already on final.
: > I see this happen all too often -- almost invariably by the charter
: > guys, who have a paying guy in the back that's late for his meeting --
: > and it results in frayed nerves and flared tempers.
:
: Lets all pick on the charter guys ').Sometimes, it is easier (when you
: look at the comparitive speeds and altitudes) to just fly a straight
: in.Of course, this is not always the case, and people should not be
: rude or disrespectful about it.Try this the next time you are out
: there, fly your downwind at 1500 AGL and 190kts, then try to figure
: out where YOU will fit into the traffic patern.I bet you will find it
: is not so easy.Fortunatly most all of the GA guys understand this and
: are VERY helpful.IMO the transport guys appreciate it very much.But
: then there is those pesky charter guys (Kidding).
: > --
: > Jay Honeck
: > Iowa City, IA
: > Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
: > "Your Aviation Destination"
:

Tower: Cherokee 918, can you give me a close in approach? Traffic is a DC 10 on a 5 mile final.
Me: Sure!
Tower: Cherokee 918, you are cleared to land, runway 4R. Please expedite.
Me: Copy, cleared to land 4R, Cherokee 918.

I'm out on about a 1/2 mile right base for 4R. Moving pretty good in the Cherokee 6, no flaps yet...Pull the power and
hold the nose up, roll in to a good tight 30° right bank, slow into the white arc, pull on full flaps, roll her out and
cross the threshold at 25' or so, touchdown with the stall horn honkin'. Make the first turn off...

Tower: Cherokee 918, thanks for that, contact ground .9
Me: G-day...

Hawaiian freight dog flying days...

Dallas

February 7th 07, 06:47 AM

On 5 Feb 2007 17:42:52 -0800, Dave wrote:

> On top of all that, what if the instrument approach happens to be
> downwind,

That happened to me the last time I flew. I was announcing a take off on
runway 35 while a student with an instructor were announcing a 1 mile final
on runway 17.

They were practicing ILS approaches so they had to land downwind on runway
17. I had to jog out of their way on the climb out.

--
Dallas

Dallas

February 7th 07, 07:08 AM

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:16:03 -0500, Roger wrote:

> Citation on down wind and you
> have the same thing.

In my short career, I have never seen a kerosene burner in the pattern,
they always land straight in at my airport.

--
Dallas

Roy Smith

February 7th 07, 01:10 PM

In article >,
Dallas > wrote:

> On 5 Feb 2007 17:42:52 -0800, Dave wrote:
>
> > On top of all that, what if the instrument approach happens to be
> > downwind,
>
> That happened to me the last time I flew. I was announcing a take off on
> runway 35 while a student with an instructor were announcing a 1 mile final
> on runway 17.
>
> They were practicing ILS approaches so they had to land downwind on runway
> 17. I had to jog out of their way on the climb out.

They *HAD* to do nothing of the sort. They *SHOULD* have broken off the
approach at some reasonable altitude and circled to land on the runway in
use. If you want to practice downwind landings, go to a towered airport
and let ATC control the traffic for you.

Christopher Brian Colohan

February 7th 07, 03:58 PM

Dallas > writes:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:16:03 -0500, Roger wrote:
>
> > Citation on down wind and you
> > have the same thing.
>
> In my short career, I have never seen a kerosene burner in the pattern,
> they always land straight in at my airport.

To give another data point -- at my home airport (KBED) I have never
seen a jet _not_ fly a pattern. This is possibly because most jets
are coming from the West, and R29 is the one normally used.

Chris

Roger[_4_]

February 7th 07, 09:32 PM

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:10:26 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> Dallas > wrote:
>
>> On 5 Feb 2007 17:42:52 -0800, Dave wrote:
>>
>> > On top of all that, what if the instrument approach happens to be
>> > downwind,
>>
>> That happened to me the last time I flew. I was announcing a take off on
>> runway 35 while a student with an instructor were announcing a 1 mile final
>> on runway 17.
>>
>> They were practicing ILS approaches so they had to land downwind on runway
>> 17. I had to jog out of their way on the climb out.
>
>They *HAD* to do nothing of the sort. They *SHOULD* have broken off the
>approach at some reasonable altitude and circled to land on the runway in
>use. If you want to practice downwind landings, go to a towered airport
>and let ATC control the traffic for you.

I took the instrument PTS at Traverse City MI (KTVC) where ILS and NDB
approaches were down wind. We never made a complete approach to the
runway from that direction due to traffic. We were the ones directed
to break off <:-)) and we had expected to do so. The tower did know it
was a check ride.
As we had been doing everything down wind to that point they forgot
when we did the VOR with a circle to land on 10 and they gave us
instructions to circle that would have put us in front of departing
traffic.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dallas

February 8th 07, 07:32 AM

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:10:26 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

> They *HAD* to do nothing of the sort. They *SHOULD* have broken off the
> approach at some reasonable altitude and circled to land on the runway

To make matters worse, they continued to practice downwind ILS landings all
day. When I was on the ground, I saw them make a go around.

Think about that for a moment. They jogged to the right of the runway
which put them a few hundred feet AGL, heading the same direction as the
pattern downwind, but well inside the pattern.

At some point they would reach pattern altitude and have to cross the
traffic turning base.

--
Dallas

Ron Natalie

February 8th 07, 11:59 AM

Roger wrote:

> I've also received an "expedite" as I took the runway as there was a
> jet on 5 mile final. It didn't bother me, but it dure made my
> passenger nervous. This was another DC-9 at LAN
>
"Keep your speed up" is something I heard constantly at IAD
when I was based there. Used to fly 120 knots until the
threshold in a Skyhawk and sometimes even managed 140 in
the Navion (well, we were also descending). The first
turn off at Dulles is 4500 down the runway, so had plenty
of time to get her slowed down and turned off (slips with
flaps were a normal procedure).

Nobody flew anything resembling a pattern.

Ron Lee

February 8th 07, 07:19 PM

Ron Natalie > wrote:

>"Keep your speed up" is something I heard constantly at IAD
>when I was based there. Used to fly 120 knots until the
>threshold in a Skyhawk and sometimes even managed 140 in
>the Navion (well, we were also descending). The first
>turn off at Dulles is 4500 down the runway, so had plenty
>of time to get her slowed down and turned off (slips with
>flaps were a normal procedure).
>
>Nobody flew anything resembling a pattern.

IAD is not a typical GA airport.

Ron Lee

Andrew Gideon

February 8th 07, 10:06 PM

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:59:40 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

> "Keep your speed up" is something I heard constantly at IAD when I was
> based there. Used to fly 120 knots until the threshold in a Skyhawk and
> sometimes even managed 140 in the Navion (well, we were also descending).

<Sigh> That's perhaps the only thing I really miss about TEB.

- Andrew

Steven P. McNicoll

February 8th 07, 10:11 PM

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Obviously I scanned for traffic, which is why I'm still here ;-)
>

I don't understand. Are you saying you scanned for traffic, spotted traffic
one mile out on final, and then turned base?

>
> He claimed to be twenty miles out, or about 10 minutes away at
> Cherokee speeds. Plenty of time for me to land first. However, he
> was much, much closer. Apparently he was overloaded doing the
> practice approach.
>

Are you sure it was the same aircraft?

>
> In the pattern, it's easier to see where someone is. Straight in, you
> often just have to believe what they say. (That is, trust but
> verify ;-)
>

I've heard others say that, but I've never found find it difficult to spot
traffic on final.

Steven P. McNicoll

February 8th 07, 10:13 PM

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> It may not have been disapproved by official regulation.
> It is disapproved by many pilots, though. ;<)
> Especially me. I have enough to deal with when everyone, including
> me, is where they belong.
>

Aircraft don't "belong" on final?

Steven P. McNicoll

February 8th 07, 10:26 PM

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>
> Something else I try to practice is that when transferred to the local
> traffic advisory, I not only announce my position on the approach
> including altitudes, but I use terms that VFR or non local pilots in the
> area will understand.
>

That should include any identified point on the sectional, but some pilots
complain about that usage.

>
> I think this is an area where some of the pilots
> such as Jay refers to can improve their SOP. Granted, when the pattern is
> full, this maybe too much info when everybody's trying to announce their
> positions and intentions, again, a pilot must be able to adjust to the
> circumstances.
>

Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?

>
> For those on downwind encountering another pilot performing a straight in
> approach, don't forget about the ability to extend your downwind leg.
> Don't let yourself get so locked into your "standard" pattern of turning
> base when 45 degrees from X at Xagl at Xrpms and Xkts that you find
> yourself flustered and brain locked when an approaching airplane announces
> something that you aren't expecting.
>

Or, in other words, expect aircraft to arrive straight-in and scan the final
for traffic. Too many pilots don't look for traffic outside the pattern.

Steven P. McNicoll

February 8th 07, 10:39 PM

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
>
> One of the reasons they are on long finals is they followed
> McNicholl's advice to extend downwind to give the guy on a straight in
> approach the right of way.
>

Actually, it's FAR 91.113(g) that gives the guy on a straight-in approach
the right of way. McNicoll advises adherence to the FARs.

Steven P. McNicoll

February 8th 07, 10:41 PM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> I know if I have time enough to land if he's telling the truth<:-))
> OTOH that's just inside the FAF and it might be me.
>

Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Steven P. McNicoll

February 8th 07, 11:02 PM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's usually not complicated if people are paying attention.
> If I can fit between sky divers and jump planes at Zypher Hills I
> should be able to adjust to either have enough room to land and clear
> the runway ahead of the guy on long final, or extend my down wind to
> get behind him.
>

'Zackly. I think many pilots interpret "right-of-way" to mean "the next
aircraft to land". That's not what it means. Right-of-way rules come into
play only if the aircraft concerned would otherwise occupy the same piece of
sky, or nearly so. If you're on downwind when another aircraft announces a
long straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way
shouldn't be an issue. If he's closer in you may have to extend your
downwind a bit to follow him.

[email protected]

February 9th 07, 12:42 AM

On Feb 8, 3:13 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
>
>
> > It may not have been disapproved by official regulation.
> > It is disapproved by many pilots, though. ;<)
> > Especially me. I have enough to deal with when everyone, including
> > me, is where they belong.
>
> Aircraft don't "belong" on final?

Of course they do. But the "belong" on final as part of the regular,
expected pattern.
Some of the posters have some reasonable situations for straight-ins.
But if you're flying the usual 4 or 6 banger at the usual speeds, you
are best and safest joining the pattern in the usual, expected manner
to get where you belong. Calling final 10 miles out doesn't cut it.

I don't see it often, but a couple times while flying a glider in the
pattern, I had pilots call a long final, and I couldn't even see them
anywhere. Sure, I had the right of way, but.....

Casey Wilson

February 9th 07, 01:15 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>

>
> 'Zackly. I think many pilots interpret "right-of-way" to mean "the next
> aircraft to land". That's not what it means. Right-of-way rules come
> into
> play only if the aircraft concerned would otherwise occupy the same piece
> of
> sky, or nearly so. If you're on downwind when another aircraft announces
> a
> long straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way
> shouldn't be an issue. If he's closer in you may have to extend your
> downwind a bit to follow him.

Maybe, if that were based just on FAR91.113b.
Where does "on final" begin? If I'm abeam the numbers on downwind and
an inbound calls "...at 3300 feet [pattern altitude] on 15 mile final" for
the same runway, can I cut in front of him or not? FAR 91.113b seems tenuous
(subjective) while 91.113g seems to explicitly deny me that option.

Newps

February 9th 07, 01:48 AM

Casey Wilson wrote:

>
>
> Maybe, if that were based just on FAR91.113b.
> Where does "on final" begin? If I'm abeam the numbers on downwind and
> an inbound calls "...at 3300 feet [pattern altitude] on 15 mile final" for
> the same runway, can I cut in front of him or not? FAR 91.113b seems tenuous
> (subjective) while 91.113g seems to explicitly deny me that option.
>

If you fly your normal pattern and get in front of the straight in
leaving a normal spacing then life is good. That part about not using
the fact you're on final unreasonably covers this.

Mxsmanic

February 9th 07, 02:46 AM

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
> full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
> someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?

I'm still not sure that I see the advantage to patterns. It just seems like
it puts a lot of aircraft in close proximity to each other. And unless they
are all aircraft of identical type, "the" pattern will actually be several
patterns, some with slow, low aircraft, and others with higher, faster
aircraft. Unfortunately, all of these patterns may still be sharing a single
runway. It sounds like a recipe for accidents.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Kev

February 9th 07, 03:40 AM

On Feb 8, 5:11 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> I don't understand. Are you saying you scanned for traffic, spotted traffic
> one mile out on final, and then turned base?

Nope. As I said, he called straight-in final, claiming to be twenty
miles out... or about ten minutes away. Plenty of time for us to
land (I was with a CFI at the time). Less than a minute later we
turned base, but luckily spotted him coming straight in over a hill,
and only a half mile from landing... so we went around. And yes, it
was the same aircraft.

> > In the pattern, it's easier to see where someone is. Straight in, you
> > often just have to believe what they say. (That is, trust but
> > verify ;-)
>
> I've heard others say that, but I've never found find it difficult to spot
> traffic on final.

It's hilly enough around here that it can be difficult to spot an
aircraft on straight-in final.

Cheers, Kev

Roger[_4_]

February 9th 07, 04:45 AM

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:41:52 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I know if I have time enough to land if he's telling the truth<:-))
>> OTOH that's just inside the FAF and it might be me.
>>
>
>Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
>
>
And you expect me to remember?

I was referring to the comment about the 5 mile final previous to my
post. IOW if some one calls in on a 5 mile final and I'm on down
wind, I know I have at least two minutes or more (if he's telling the
truth) to land. From my position in the pattern I should know if I
have that much time. OTOH I call final when I pass the FAF for the
GPS 24 or 06 approaches. That is about 5 miles out (5.1 to be
specific) and I fly the approach at 120 MPH. That means I should get
to the runway in 2 1/2 minutes. So calling final passing the FAF lets
most of those in the area know where I am and about how much time they
have.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

chris[_1_]

February 9th 07, 07:22 AM

On Feb 9, 3:46 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll writes:
> > Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
> > full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
> > someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?
>
> I'm still not sure that I see the advantage to patterns. It just seems like
> it puts a lot of aircraft in close proximity to each other. And unless they
> are all aircraft of identical type, "the" pattern will actually be several
> patterns, some with slow, low aircraft, and others with higher, faster
> aircraft. Unfortunately, all of these patterns may still be sharing a single
> runway. It sounds like a recipe for accidents.
>

On the contrary - it is usually fairly orderly, and definitely not a
recipe for accidents. Most aircraft are able to cruise at 90 - 100
kt, anything more than that makes the average circuit too small..
Everyone flies at the same altitude, and you just adjust your speed to
suit. I have had 150kt groundspeed a few times when it's just me in
the circuit, but if there were other aircraft I would definitely slow
down..

Just curious - what would you use instead? I can imagine all sorts of
chaos without a circuit/pattern - people coming from all different
directions all wanting to land.. At some airfields you can be number
ten or twelve in the circuit, I can't imagine how else you could make
arriving traffic into any sort of orderly line.. And you have some
clue where to look for people in the circuit / pattern.

This is wikipedia's take on the reason for circuits / patterns:

The use of a pattern at airfields is for air safety. Rather than have
aircraft flying around the field in a haphazard fashion, by using a
pattern pilots will know from where to expect other air traffic, and
be able to see it and avoid it. GA pilots flying under Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) will not be separated by air traffic control, and so the
pattern is a vital way to keep things orderly.

That was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pattern

chris[_1_]

February 9th 07, 07:35 AM

On Feb 9, 8:22 pm, "chris" > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 3:46 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Steven P. McNicoll writes:
> > > Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
> > > full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
> > > someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?
>
> > I'm still not sure that I see the advantage to patterns. It just seems like
> > it puts a lot of aircraft in close proximity to each other. And unless they
> > are all aircraft of identical type, "the" pattern will actually be several
> > patterns, some with slow, low aircraft, and others with higher, faster
> > aircraft. Unfortunately, all of these patterns may still be sharing a single
> > runway. It sounds like a recipe for accidents.
>
> On the contrary - it is usually fairly orderly, and definitely not a
> recipe for accidents. Most aircraft are able to cruise at 90 - 100
> kt, anything more than that makes the average circuit too small..
> Everyone flies at the same altitude, and you just adjust your speed to
> suit. I have had 150kt groundspeed a few times when it's just me in
> the circuit, but if there were other aircraft I would definitely slow
> down..
>
> Just curious - what would you use instead? I can imagine all sorts of
> chaos without a circuit/pattern - people coming from all different
> directions all wanting to land.. At some airfields you can be number
> ten or twelve in the circuit, I can't imagine how else you could make
> arriving traffic into any sort of orderly line.. And you have some
> clue where to look for people in the circuit / pattern.
>
> This is wikipedia's take on the reason for circuits / patterns:
>
> The use of a pattern at airfields is for air safety. Rather than have
> aircraft flying around the field in a haphazard fashion, by using a
> pattern pilots will know from where to expect other air traffic, and
> be able to see it and avoid it. GA pilots flying under Visual Flight
> Rules (VFR) will not be separated by air traffic control, and so the
> pattern is a vital way to keep things orderly.
>
> That was fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pattern

Oh, and I forgot one other point I was going to make - if you do a
circuit at an uncontrolled field, it gives you a chance to double-
check the windsock is favourable instead of coming straight in, only
to have to do a go around if the wind is wrong.. That's if you didn't
do an overhead rejoin, which is often a good idea at uncontrolled
airfields.

A Guy Called Tyketto

February 9th 07, 07:43 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>
>> Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
>> full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
>> someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?
>
> I'm still not sure that I see the advantage to patterns. It just seems like
> it puts a lot of aircraft in close proximity to each other. And unless they
> are all aircraft of identical type, "the" pattern will actually be several
> patterns, some with slow, low aircraft, and others with higher, faster
> aircraft. Unfortunately, all of these patterns may still be sharing a single
> runway. It sounds like a recipe for accidents.
>

This is where ATC's job shines; Whereas you think they are only
there to serve pilots (from another forum, you say, "Remember, ATC is
at the service of pilots, not the other way around. In the U.S., the
pilot in command is the final authority, not ATC. That's why ATC refers
to pilots as "Sir."), you have no clue about what ATC does, nor how
they do it.

As I have mentioned, as well as people here (who are
controllers) have also mentioned, the main purpose for ATC is to
provide separation of traffic in his/her airspace. This is such a
situation. When you have a fair number of planes in the pattern for a
given field, ATC provides the separation for these planes, and keeps
the traffic running smoothly.

You would know that if you have read any documentation that
people here have told you to read. But I digress; you seem to think you
know it all, so we'll all just sit back and laugh at you while you
continue to make a complete idiot of yourself.

I'll remind myself to invoke the Dilbert Rule the next time you
start an argument (which shouldn't take long at all).

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFzCYcyBkZmuMZ8L8RAgwgAKDGmXTHAmuZ0WhvKQhIls 3tNeUC9gCg48jY
X4pjSizr3D5YRWGVMZgMcY8=
=e9im
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mxsmanic

February 10th 07, 02:04 AM

chris writes:

> Just curious - what would you use instead?

The skies of simulation (e.g., VATSIM) are usually pretty quiet, so I've
developed somewhat of a preference for straight-in approaches, which I suppose
is a bit of a crutch. Seeing clearly to fly a pattern is also more difficult
in simulation, although it can still be done (once I fixed the twist axis of
my throttle to let me "turn my head," things got a lot easier). Very often
there are simply no other aircraft around, so flying a pattern is academic.

As I've improved in holding headings and altitude when flying by hand, I've
flown more patterns, and sometimes I do pattern work explicitly. In Class B
airspace, however, I'll usually fly a pattern with autopilot (if I'm told to
fly the pattern), because I want to make sure that I don't stray up, down, or
sideways with a lot of other traffic nearby.

> I can imagine all sorts of
> chaos without a circuit/pattern - people coming from all different
> directions all wanting to land.

Maybe. But wouldn't they just converge onto a straight path aligned with the
final approach?

I'm sure there is time-tested logic behind patterns, I'm just having trouble
seeing it.

> The use of a pattern at airfields is for air safety. Rather than have
> aircraft flying around the field in a haphazard fashion, by using a
> pattern pilots will know from where to expect other air traffic, and
> be able to see it and avoid it. GA pilots flying under Visual Flight
> Rules (VFR) will not be separated by air traffic control, and so the
> pattern is a vital way to keep things orderly.

If everyone is spaced evenly at the same speed and altitude on the same path,
I can see that. But with people moving at potentially different speeds and
altitudes, on legs of variable length, it seems more difficult. And even
though visibility isn't as good in simulation as in real life, you still can't
look behind you in real life, either.

At a busy towered airport, I'd probably request a straight-in approach if I
could get it, or file IFR and take an ILS approach.

When I'm completely alone at an airport, I've occasionally made some wild
approaches. I wouldn't do that in real life, though, because they are pretty
risky (although I usually manage to land safely).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 10th 07, 02:05 AM

chris writes:

> Oh, and I forgot one other point I was going to make - if you do a
> circuit at an uncontrolled field, it gives you a chance to double-
> check the windsock is favourable instead of coming straight in, only
> to have to do a go around if the wind is wrong.. That's if you didn't
> do an overhead rejoin, which is often a good idea at uncontrolled
> airfields.

An overhead region? What is that?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave[_5_]

February 10th 07, 03:43 AM

I agree that patterns are a good idea - but many don't know or don't
care about using them properly. The local uncontrolled airport on
saturday afternoon is bad enough, but things get really crazy at
aviation events. They come in from all directions and at all
altitudes, and it seems that everybody has a different idea of how
wide their pattern should be. Having a tower doesn't necessarily
insure an orderly trafffic flow - I have seen Oshkosh descend into
chaos, as I'm sure have most who have flown in there.

David Johnson

Mxsmanic

February 10th 07, 04:01 AM

Dave writes:

> They come in from all directions and at all
> altitudes, and it seems that everybody has a different idea of how
> wide their pattern should be.

So how wide _should_ a pattern be?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Doe

February 10th 07, 04:27 AM

In article >,
says...
> Dave writes:
>
> > They come in from all directions and at all
> > altitudes, and it seems that everybody has a different idea of how
> > wide their pattern should be.
>
> So how wide _should_ a pattern be?

Excactly half the width of the ones you fly.

--
Duncan

Dave Doe

February 10th 07, 04:28 AM

In article >,
says...
> chris writes:
>
> > Oh, and I forgot one other point I was going to make - if you do a
> > circuit at an uncontrolled field, it gives you a chance to double-
> > check the windsock is favourable instead of coming straight in, only
> > to have to do a go around if the wind is wrong.. That's if you didn't
> > do an overhead rejoin, which is often a good idea at uncontrolled
> > airfields.
>
> An overhead region? What is that?

You really don't read the MSFS docs do yer. I'm sure a standard
overhead rejoin will be covered.

--
Duncan

Mxsmanic

February 10th 07, 05:28 AM

Dave Doe writes:

> Excactly half the width of the ones you fly.

If you don't know the answers to my questions, why do you reply?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

chris[_1_]

February 10th 07, 07:04 AM

On Feb 10, 3:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Oh, and I forgot one other point I was going to make - if you do a
> > circuit at an uncontrolled field, it gives you a chance to double-
> > check the windsock is favourable instead of coming straight in, only
> > to have to do a go around if the wind is wrong.. That's if you didn't
> > do an overhead rejoin, which is often a good idea at uncontrolled
> > airfields.
>
> An overhead region? What is that?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Hi

An overhead rejoin is a procedure where you approach the airfield at
500 ft above the circuit height, then after you have established the
windsock direction, let down on the non-traffic side to circuit
height, crossing over to join downwind at about the far end of the
runway, and then do the rest of the circuit as normal. Good for
seeing which direction the circuit should be going, if there is nobody
else around for you to observe in the circuit.

chris[_1_]

February 10th 07, 07:13 AM

On Feb 10, 5:01 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave writes:
> > They come in from all directions and at all
> > altitudes, and it seems that everybody has a different idea of how
> > wide their pattern should be.
>
> So how wide _should_ a pattern be?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Try this in a small a/c like a 172 on your sim. Take off, climb at
about 80 knots to 500 ft agl. Climbing turn to your left so you are
pointing 90 degrees to your left. Continue climbing to 1000 ft agl.
Level out, reduce power to 2400, and turn 90 degrees to left. As you
fly downwind, have a look out the left window at the runway and you
should see it about the right spacing, although if the a/c is light
you sometimes have to level out but wait a little bit before turning
downwind or you end up a bit close. When the threshold is 45 degrees
off your left shoulder, reduce power to 1500 rpm, wait until the
airspeed is in the white arc, lower 10 flap. Do not increase rpm, and
as you get to 70 kt, turn left 90 degrees. You are now on base leg.
Maintain 70 knots and go flaps 20. When you get to 500 ft agl, you
should be ready to turn finals. Turn, and when established on finals,
lower the last 10 flap, and reduce airspeed to 60 knots, using power
as required. Land.

If you were below 500 ft on your turn to finals, you might need to
feed in more power on the way down to reduce your rate of descent. If
you were above 500 ft then you were too close on downwind.

Have a crack at that and see how you get on.

chris[_1_]

February 10th 07, 07:14 AM

On Feb 10, 4:43 pm, "Dave" > wrote:
> I agree that patterns are a good idea - but many don't know or don't
> care about using them properly. The local uncontrolled airport on
> saturday afternoon is bad enough, but things get really crazy at
> aviation events. They come in from all directions and at all
> altitudes, and it seems that everybody has a different idea of how
> wide their pattern should be. Having a tower doesn't necessarily
> insure an orderly trafffic flow - I have seen Oshkosh descend into
> chaos, as I'm sure have most who have flown in there.
>
> David Johnson

I really hate it when some turkey decides to extend his downwind to
the next city.. I sometimes ask tower if I can cut in front and do a
short approach..

chris[_1_]

February 10th 07, 07:27 AM

On Feb 10, 3:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Just curious - what would you use instead?
>
> The skies of simulation (e.g., VATSIM) are usually pretty quiet, so I've
> developed somewhat of a preference for straight-in approaches, which I suppose
> is a bit of a crutch. Seeing clearly to fly a pattern is also more difficult
> in simulation, although it can still be done (once I fixed the twist axis of
> my throttle to let me "turn my head," things got a lot easier). Very often
> there are simply no other aircraft around, so flying a pattern is academic.
>
> As I've improved in holding headings and altitude when flying by hand, I've
> flown more patterns, and sometimes I do pattern work explicitly. In Class B
> airspace, however, I'll usually fly a pattern with autopilot (if I'm told to
> fly the pattern), because I want to make sure that I don't stray up, down, or
> sideways with a lot of other traffic nearby.

I have no idea what Class B airspace is - we don't have such a beasty
here.

>
> > I can imagine all sorts of
> > chaos without a circuit/pattern - people coming from all different
> > directions all wanting to land.
>
> Maybe. But wouldn't they just converge onto a straight path aligned with the
> final approach?

This all depends on the wind. I should really have pointed this out.
For example, our local airport has a pair of grass strips, 07/25,
18/36, and seal 18/36
If I am coming from the west and there is an easterly, they will get
me to land straight in on 07
If I am coming from the west and there is a westerly, they will get me
to join downwind 25, and then they can pack in a number of aircraft on
the downwind.
If I am coming from the north and there is a westerly, I will probably
get asked to join downwind 25
If I am heavy and they know it, and coming from the west, I might end
up being asked to join right base 18 seal.

Make sense?? It's as much about where you are coming from relative to
the wind as much as squeezing traffic in.. Otherwise if we all did
straight in approaches we would have to track past the airfield,
establish where the end of the queue is, fly to it, crank it round
then land.

>
> I'm sure there is time-tested logic behind patterns, I'm just having trouble
> seeing it.
>

See above.

> > The use of a pattern at airfields is for air safety. Rather than have
> > aircraft flying around the field in a haphazard fashion, by using a
> > pattern pilots will know from where to expect other air traffic, and
> > be able to see it and avoid it. GA pilots flying under Visual Flight
> > Rules (VFR) will not be separated by air traffic control, and so the
> > pattern is a vital way to keep things orderly.
>
> If everyone is spaced evenly at the same speed and altitude on the same path,
> I can see that. But with people moving at potentially different speeds and
> altitudes, on legs of variable length, it seems more difficult. And even
> though visibility isn't as good in simulation as in real life, you still can't
> look behind you in real life, either.
>

Yes I can!! If I fly a Cessna then you can most certainly look
behind you. Have a look in MSFS at the 172 - big window at the back
aye!! They call it the OmniVision rear window, IIRC
Everyone absolutely needs to be at the same altitude and direction -
there is a standard circuit altitude, use anything else and get real
****ed off controllers. Except for 2 situations I can think of - you
can ask for a low level circuit, which is fun, and if the weather goes
SVFR you might end up 600 ft in the circuit, but that would also be
agreed beforehand. You have some discretion over spacing but need to
adjust your speed for the guy in front.

> At a busy towered airport, I'd probably request a straight-in approach if I
> could get it, or file IFR and take an ILS approach.

If it is busy I wouldn't like to start asking for things..

>
> When I'm completely alone at an airport, I've occasionally made some wild
> approaches. I wouldn't do that in real life, though, because they are pretty
> risky (although I usually manage to land safely).
>

Ever seen a meat bombing plane landing?? They do some mean
approaches!!

> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 10th 07, 07:33 AM

chris writes:

> I have no idea what Class B airspace is - we don't have such a beasty
> here.

It may be called something different, but you probably have it. I think most
or all ICAO countries implement it in some form.

In Class B you need to be in contact with ATC and you need a clearance before
you can enter it. In the U.S., Class B surrounds a few dozen major airports.

> Yes I can!! If I fly a Cessna then you can most certainly look
> behind you. Have a look in MSFS at the 172 - big window at the back
> aye!! They call it the OmniVision rear window, IIRC

Oh. Well, there's no such window on a Baron. All I can see is the passenger
seats in back.

> If it is busy I wouldn't like to start asking for things..

If you file IFR you'll get an instrument approach by default, and since most
instrument approaches are ILS, that's usually straight in.

> Ever seen a meat bombing plane landing?? They do some mean
> approaches!!

They are more daring than I am.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

chris[_1_]

February 10th 07, 07:45 AM

On Feb 10, 8:33 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I have no idea what Class B airspace is - we don't have such a beasty
> > here.
>
> It may be called something different, but you probably have it. I think most
> or all ICAO countries implement it in some form.
>
> In Class B you need to be in contact with ATC and you need a clearance before
> you can enter it. In the U.S., Class B surrounds a few dozen major airports.
>

I see.. We have something slightly different.. Airports have a thing
called a Control Zone which is generally 10 nm in one direction from
the airfield and 5 miles the other way, and usually goes sfc-2500. We
have class C above that. I had assumed that was normal in other
countries but obviously not...

> > Yes I can!! If I fly a Cessna then you can most certainly look
> > behind you. Have a look in MSFS at the 172 - big window at the back
> > aye!! They call it the OmniVision rear window, IIRC
>
> Oh. Well, there's no such window on a Baron. All I can see is the passenger
> seats in back.

Ah.. Well I fly 50/50 C172 and Archer in real life but I find them a
bit slow on X-plane.. The 172 has a rear window, the Archer does not.
Also I remember when I had a crack at MSFS a while ago the Baron was
good fun and reasonably quick. I know I wouldn't have a **** show of
being able to fly one in real life.. Even our Twin Comanche at the
club is way way beyond my skills

>
> > If it is busy I wouldn't like to start asking for things..
>
> If you file IFR you'll get an instrument approach by default, and since most
> instrument approaches are ILS, that's usually straight in.
>
I know nothing about IFR...

> > Ever seen a meat bombing plane landing?? They do some mean
> > approaches!!
>
> They are more daring than I am.

And me! About the most daring thing I do in a plane is making a pen
float, but last time I did that I got a bit carried away and had all
the stuff in the pockets in the back of the seats flying...

>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Doe

February 10th 07, 08:19 AM

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Excactly half the width of the ones you fly.
>
> If you don't know the answers to my questions, why do you reply?

I gave you the answer.

--
Duncan

Mxsmanic

February 10th 07, 03:29 PM

chris writes:

> I see.. We have something slightly different.. Airports have a thing
> called a Control Zone which is generally 10 nm in one direction from
> the airfield and 5 miles the other way, and usually goes sfc-2500. We
> have class C above that. I had assumed that was normal in other
> countries but obviously not...

My guess is that Control Zone is your local term for one of the ICAO
airspaces, perhaps Class D if it's a small airport or Class B if it's a large
one. You would refer to it as a Control Zone at home but from the ICAO's
viewpoint it would be one of the standard airspace classes.

> Ah.. Well I fly 50/50 C172 and Archer in real life but I find them a
> bit slow on X-plane.. The 172 has a rear window, the Archer does not.
> Also I remember when I had a crack at MSFS a while ago the Baron was
> good fun and reasonably quick. I know I wouldn't have a **** show of
> being able to fly one in real life.. Even our Twin Comanche at the
> club is way way beyond my skills

The Dreamfleet Baron 58 is vastly more accurate than the default Baron in
MSFS, although the default Baron is no slouch.

> I know nothing about IFR...

Ah. Well, try it in simulation. I like IFR. It's fun to fly around in
darkness sometimes with only instruments to guide you to your destination, and
then see the airport and runway exactly where you predicted they would be as
you make your approach. Autoland can be fun for the same reason. Technology
at its best.

> And me! About the most daring thing I do in a plane is making a pen
> float, but last time I did that I got a bit carried away and had all
> the stuff in the pockets in the back of the seats flying...

I don't like strong accelerations. I like procedures and precision, not
roller-coaster rides. That's why a ride in a fighter plane would appeal to me
many times less than a ride in an airliner.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

chris[_1_]

February 10th 07, 07:31 PM

On Feb 11, 4:29 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I see.. We have something slightly different.. Airports have a thing
> > called a Control Zone which is generally 10 nm in one direction from
> > the airfield and 5 miles the other way, and usually goes sfc-2500. We
> > have class C above that. I had assumed that was normal in other
> > countries but obviously not...
>
> My guess is that Control Zone is your local term for one of the ICAO
> airspaces, perhaps Class D if it's a small airport or Class B if it's a large
> one. You would refer to it as a Control Zone at home but from the ICAO's
> viewpoint it would be one of the standard airspace classes.
>

I won't argue as I have absolutely no idea if you are right or
wrong.. All I know is to approach a towered airport we need clearance
to enter the control zone.. Anything else I say would be sheer
speculation

> > Ah.. Well I fly 50/50 C172 and Archer in real life but I find them a
> > bit slow on X-plane.. The 172 has a rear window, the Archer does not.
> > Also I remember when I had a crack at MSFS a while ago the Baron was
> > good fun and reasonably quick. I know I wouldn't have a **** show of
> > being able to fly one in real life.. Even our Twin Comanche at the
> > club is way way beyond my skills
>
> The Dreamfleet Baron 58 is vastly more accurate than the default Baron in
> MSFS, although the default Baron is no slouch.

Nice...

>
> > I know nothing about IFR...
>
> Ah. Well, try it in simulation. I like IFR. It's fun to fly around in
> darkness sometimes with only instruments to guide you to your destination, and
> then see the airport and runway exactly where you predicted they would be as
> you make your approach. Autoland can be fun for the same reason. Technology
> at its best.
>

I was thinking about having a read up on it, I have been for a fly
with someone doing some of that stuff and it seemed to me to be far
more complicated than I could deal with...

> > And me! About the most daring thing I do in a plane is making a pen
> > float, but last time I did that I got a bit carried away and had all
> > the stuff in the pockets in the back of the seats flying...
>
> I don't like strong accelerations. I like procedures and precision, not
> roller-coaster rides. That's why a ride in a fighter plane would appeal to me
> many times less than a ride in an airliner.

Each to his own, I always say... I refuse to experience spinning for
the same reason.

Mxsmanic

February 10th 07, 10:49 PM

chris writes:

> I was thinking about having a read up on it, I have been for a fly
> with someone doing some of that stuff and it seemed to me to be far
> more complicated than I could deal with...

Everyone has his reasons for flying. If you don't enjoy the idea of flying on
instruments, certainly there's little reason to pursue it. It would come in
handy if you accidentally got stuck in IMC or if for some reason you really
wanted to fly on a day with bad weather, but those may not be frequency enough
to merit studying it.

Trying it on a sim is a cheap way to find out what it's like, and may well be
enough to help you decide if you really want to pursue it in real life as
well.

I'd expect IFR to appeal to the engineering, technician types of pilots. VFR
would appeal to pilots who like to feel the wind in their hair and the
sensations of movement (which you'd have to ignore in IFR, of course). I'm in
the former category, as you may have surmised.

> Each to his own, I always say... I refuse to experience spinning for
> the same reason.

I wouldn't want to experience a spin for reasons of safety rather than strong
sensation, although I wouldn't consider the sensation a positive experience,
either.

My idea of a good flight is one in which every procedure is followed, every
regulation is observed, every ATC instruction is promptly executed, the path
and altitude of the aircraft precisely follow the flight plan (with any
amendments), and the take-off and landing are flawless. The actual physical
movement may be not much more than that experienced in an elevator ride. I do
like to look out the window, however, if flying conditions provide a good
view.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ron Natalie

February 10th 07, 11:27 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I'm sure there is time-tested logic behind patterns, I'm just having trouble
> seeing it.
>

If you would bother to read any introductory pilot material or flew
in an airplane with windows you'd see that the reason for patterns
is the same reason for the hemispherical cruising altitudes. It's
easier to see people at the same altitude when they are converging
slower.

> At a busy towered airport, I'd probably request a straight-in approach if I
> could get it, or file IFR and take an ILS approach.

At a busy towered airport you do what the controller tells you to do,
which may be a straight in, a base entry, or a full pattern.
>
> When I'm completely alone at an airport, I've occasionally made some wild
> approaches. I wouldn't do that in real life, though, because they are pretty
> risky (although I usually manage to land safely).

You don't do anything in real life, you play aviation masturbation
fantasies in your own pathetic little world. It's not reality.

LET ME REPEAT. IT'S NOT REAL.
'
DON'T CONFUSE REAL PILOTS, AND THOSE WITH AN INTEREST IN REALITY
WITH YOUR INVENTED FANTASIES.

>

Mxsmanic

February 10th 07, 11:30 PM

Ron Natalie writes:

> If you would bother to read any introductory pilot material or flew
> in an airplane with windows you'd see that the reason for patterns
> is the same reason for the hemispherical cruising altitudes. It's
> easier to see people at the same altitude when they are converging
> slower.

They could converge slowly without flying a pattern.

> At a busy towered airport you do what the controller tells you to do,
> which may be a straight in, a base entry, or a full pattern.

I have the option of telling the controller what I'd like to do. He may even
ask.

> DON'T CONFUSE REAL PILOTS, AND THOSE WITH AN INTEREST IN REALITY
> WITH YOUR INVENTED FANTASIES.

They are not my fantasies; they are simulation. There are some crucial
differences between the two.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Morgans

February 11th 07, 12:52 AM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> DON'T CONFUSE REAL PILOTS, AND THOSE WITH AN INTEREST IN REALITY
> WITH YOUR INVENTED FANTASIES.

I see you have finally lost your patience with our troll. Congratulations.

My hope is that everyone will; sooner, rather than later.
--
Jim in NC

chris[_1_]

February 11th 07, 08:49 AM

On Feb 11, 11:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I was thinking about having a read up on it, I have been for a fly
> > with someone doing some of that stuff and it seemed to me to be far
> > more complicated than I could deal with...
>
> Everyone has his reasons for flying. If you don't enjoy the idea of flying on
> instruments, certainly there's little reason to pursue it. It would come in
> handy if you accidentally got stuck in IMC or if for some reason you really
> wanted to fly on a day with bad weather, but those may not be frequency enough
> to merit studying it.
>

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but the common theory here is
that for an average private pilot to keep current with his IFR rating
he or she would have to do every flight IFR, and maybe that would be
good, I just dunno..

> Trying it on a sim is a cheap way to find out what it's like, and may well be
> enough to help you decide if you really want to pursue it in real life as
> well.
>
> I'd expect IFR to appeal to the engineering, technician types of pilots. VFR
> would appeal to pilots who like to feel the wind in their hair and the
> sensations of movement (which you'd have to ignore in IFR, of course). I'm in
> the former category, as you may have surmised.
>

The sensation of moment sucks when you're on instruments. I have done
5.4 hours of simulated instrument flying, nothing more than enough to
keep me upright while I get my ass out of the crap I just flew into..
And the leans have to be experienced to be believed! I was told to
put the hood on immediately after takeoff, and by the time I got to
1000 ft I had my head just about in my instructor's lap, the leans
were so severe! It is when your brain decides you're going one way
but the instruments say you're going another way... You don't feel a
gentle right turn, say, but when you look at the AH, you see it's
turning to the right. You correct, and the AH says you're straight
and level but the brain says you're leaning to the left!! It's a real
funny feeling!!!

> > Each to his own, I always say... I refuse to experience spinning for
> > the same reason.
>
> I wouldn't want to experience a spin for reasons of safety rather than strong
> sensation, although I wouldn't consider the sensation a positive experience,
> either.
>

I didn't like wingdrops at first, and spins are like wingdrops on
acid :-)

> My idea of a good flight is one in which every procedure is followed, every
> regulation is observed, every ATC instruction is promptly executed, the path
> and altitude of the aircraft precisely follow the flight plan (with any
> amendments), and the take-off and landing are flawless. The actual physical
> movement may be not much more than that experienced in an elevator ride. I do
> like to look out the window, however, if flying conditions provide a good
> view.
>

Sounds fine to me.. Nothing wrong with wanting to give passengers a
gentle, smooth ride with rate 1 turns...

Roger[_4_]

February 11th 07, 09:55 AM

On 11 Feb 2007 00:49:00 -0800, "chris" >
wrote:

>On Feb 11, 11:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> chris writes:
>> > I was thinking about having a read up on it, I have been for a fly
>> > with someone doing some of that stuff and it seemed to me to be far
>> > more complicated than I could deal with...
>>
>> Everyone has his reasons for flying. If you don't enjoy the idea of flying on
>> instruments, certainly there's little reason to pursue it. It would come in
>> handy if you accidentally got stuck in IMC or if for some reason you really
>> wanted to fly on a day with bad weather, but those may not be frequency enough
>> to merit studying it.
>>
>
>Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but the common theory here is
>that for an average private pilot to keep current with his IFR rating
>he or she would have to do every flight IFR, and maybe that would be
>good, I just dunno..

With the current rules the problem is not just flying IFR, but by
reference to instruements only. In the soup counts, but othewise you
need a safety pilot to be legal.

>
>> Trying it on a sim is a cheap way to find out what it's like, and may well be
>> enough to help you decide if you really want to pursue it in real life as
>> well.
>>
>> I'd expect IFR to appeal to the engineering, technician types of pilots. VFR
>> would appeal to pilots who like to feel the wind in their hair and the
>> sensations of movement (which you'd have to ignore in IFR, of course). I'm in
>> the former category, as you may have surmised.

IFR appeals to pilots who want more freedom from the weather and
pilots who do a lot of long cross countries. When flying over 500
miles I find it difficult to not cross at least one if not two weather
fronts or systems.
>
>The sensation of moment sucks when you're on instruments. I have done
>5.4 hours of simulated instrument flying, nothing more than enough to
>keep me upright while I get my ass out of the crap I just flew into..
>And the leans have to be experienced to be believed! I was told to
>put the hood on immediately after takeoff, and by the time I got to
>1000 ft I had my head just about in my instructor's lap, the leans
>were so severe! It is when your brain decides you're going one way
>but the instruments say you're going another way... You don't feel a
>gentle right turn, say, but when you look at the AH, you see it's
>turning to the right. You correct, and the AH says you're straight
>and level but the brain says you're leaning to the left!! It's a real
>funny feeling!!!

It CAN get a lot more drastic than that! <:-))
It takes little more to convince your brain straight and level is a
tight turn while light flickering through a layer of clouds will
convince your brain your are making quite a turn.
I have one photo that was shot from the rear seat of a Cherokee 180 in
actual. In the photo every one appears to be leaning until you
realize the two of us in front are aligned with the AI. It was the guy
with the camera who had the leans and no one is immune.

>
>> > Each to his own, I always say... I refuse to experience spinning for
>> > the same reason.

I love aerobatics.
>>
>> I wouldn't want to experience a spin for reasons of safety rather than strong
>> sensation, although I wouldn't consider the sensation a positive experience,
>> either.
>>
They are quite safe when done in a plane that is approved for them and
when the pilot has taught AND learned the proper way to do them and
safely recover.
>
>I didn't like wingdrops at first, and spins are like wingdrops on
>acid :-)
>

My Deb does that in a simple straight ahead stall. It has no washout
in the wings so the stalls are quite abrupt. Fun but abrupt.

>> My idea of a good flight is one in which every procedure is followed, every
>> regulation is observed, every ATC instruction is promptly executed, the path
>> and altitude of the aircraft precisely follow the flight plan (with any
>> amendments), and the take-off and landing are flawless. The actual physical
>> movement may be not much more than that experienced in an elevator ride. I do
>> like to look out the window, however, if flying conditions provide a good
>> view.
Some of the most beautiful views I've had were on instruments between
layers. It looked sureal, or like a scifi painting. clouds above and
clouds below connected with pillars with isolated small clouds
floating between the levels. The light was a fluorescent green. it
was one of the most fantastic sights I've seen in all my flying.

Throw in a few steep turns. lazy eights, and some practice stalls.
<:-)) I don't fly as much as I used to so nearly every flight without
passengers is just plain practice.

>>
>
>Sounds fine to me.. Nothing wrong with wanting to give passengers a
>gentle, smooth ride with rate 1 turns...

Passengers are a different matter. Always give your passengers the
best ride possible with the least excitement.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Mxsmanic

February 11th 07, 05:41 PM

chris writes:

> Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but the common theory here is
> that for an average private pilot to keep current with his IFR rating
> he or she would have to do every flight IFR, and maybe that would be
> good, I just dunno..

I don't know if anyone is advocating that, but it does seem that there's a
strong tendency to get rusty if one doesn't practice IFR regularly, and there
are even some statutory requirements to this effect.

It surprised me to read in another post that it's possible to get an
instrument rating without ever actually flying in IMC. If this is true, then
what separates me, in a simulator, flying by instruments, from an
instrument-rated pilot? It sounds like neither of us has necessarily flown in
IMC. And IMC is the only part I haven't experienced. Maybe I should ask for
a free instrument rating.

> The sensation of moment sucks when you're on instruments.

So I've heard.

An open question is whether previous experience with aircraft motion is
preferable to no experience with aircraft motion when learning to fly on
instruments. In instrument flight, you have to ignore motion, because your
sensations are not at all reliable if you cannot correlate them with visual
information. So, is it harder to unlearn the dependence on physical
sensations that you've acquired while flying VFR in a moving aircraft, or is
it harder to ignore unreliable sensations when you simply have never depended
on them at all for flying (as in simulation).

My guess is that they are about equal, and if anything, the simulator pilot is
slightly favored, as he has no bad habits to unlearn.

> I have done
> 5.4 hours of simulated instrument flying, nothing more than enough to
> keep me upright while I get my ass out of the crap I just flew into..
> And the leans have to be experienced to be believed! I was told to
> put the hood on immediately after takeoff, and by the time I got to
> 1000 ft I had my head just about in my instructor's lap, the leans
> were so severe! It is when your brain decides you're going one way
> but the instruments say you're going another way... You don't feel a
> gentle right turn, say, but when you look at the AH, you see it's
> turning to the right. You correct, and the AH says you're straight
> and level but the brain says you're leaning to the left!! It's a real
> funny feeling!!!

And did you find it hard to ignore? Was it a struggle to trust the
instruments? Or was it merely a nuisance?

In an elevator, if you go from a low floor to a high floor, you'll experience
a distinct feeling of dropping as the elevator stops at the destination floor.
Do most people jab desperately at the elevator buttons trying to stop it from
falling, or do they ignore the sensation and look at the display in the
elevator to verify that they are indeed stopping at the right floor and not
descending again?

I thus wonder whether the trouble some pilots have with misleading sensations
in instrument flight is not a direct result of learning to depend excessively
on sensations in visual flight (without realizing that the sensations are
useless until visual information constantly corroborates them). If so, then
never having learned to depend on sensation would be a great advantage in
instrument flight.

> Sounds fine to me.. Nothing wrong with wanting to give passengers a
> gentle, smooth ride with rate 1 turns...

For me, that's good piloting. The less passengers feel, the better I'm doing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

chris[_1_]

February 11th 07, 09:17 PM

On Feb 12, 6:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but the common theory here is
> > that for an average private pilot to keep current with his IFR rating
> > he or she would have to do every flight IFR, and maybe that would be
> > good, I just dunno..
>
> I don't know if anyone is advocating that, but it does seem that there's a
> strong tendency to get rusty if one doesn't practice IFR regularly, and there
> are even some statutory requirements to this effect.
>

Apparently in this country, to stay current, in the previous 3 months
you need to have completed 3 hours of instrument time and carried out
at least 3 instrument approaches. That's not as bad as I thought, but
you still need to fly IFR often to keep current..

> It surprised me to read in another post that it's possible to get an
> instrument rating without ever actually flying in IMC. If this is true, then
> what separates me, in a simulator, flying by instruments, from an
> instrument-rated pilot? It sounds like neither of us has necessarily flown in
> IMC. And IMC is the only part I haven't experienced. Maybe I should ask for
> a free instrument rating.

I would think there's more to it than that.. Just curious, what
exactly do you consider instrument flying?? I wonder if there may be
a whole lot of stuff you maybe aren't aware of because you are self-
taught.. If so, you would need to learn that stuff first...

>
> > The sensation of moment sucks when you're on instruments.
>
> So I've heard.
>
> An open question is whether previous experience with aircraft motion is
> preferable to no experience with aircraft motion when learning to fly on
> instruments. In instrument flight, you have to ignore motion, because your
> sensations are not at all reliable if you cannot correlate them with visual
> information. So, is it harder to unlearn the dependence on physical
> sensations that you've acquired while flying VFR in a moving aircraft, or is
> it harder to ignore unreliable sensations when you simply have never depended
> on them at all for flying (as in simulation).
>
> My guess is that they are about equal, and if anything, the simulator pilot is
> slightly favored, as he has no bad habits to unlearn.

You still need to get off the ground, and to get the basic license to
let you do that you need to learn how to fly VFR...

>
> > I have done
> > 5.4 hours of simulated instrument flying, nothing more than enough to
> > keep me upright while I get my ass out of the crap I just flew into..
> > And the leans have to be experienced to be believed! I was told to
> > put the hood on immediately after takeoff, and by the time I got to
> > 1000 ft I had my head just about in my instructor's lap, the leans
> > were so severe! It is when your brain decides you're going one way
> > but the instruments say you're going another way... You don't feel a
> > gentle right turn, say, but when you look at the AH, you see it's
> > turning to the right. You correct, and the AH says you're straight
> > and level but the brain says you're leaning to the left!! It's a real
> > funny feeling!!!
>
> And did you find it hard to ignore? Was it a struggle to trust the
> instruments? Or was it merely a nuisance?

As I remember, as I was doing my scan, I'd come back to the AH for
instance, and it would be different to how it was a few seconds ago,
and I sure didn't feel the plane move. Then you roll level and you'd
start to lean to one side, and so on...
>
> In an elevator, if you go from a low floor to a high floor, you'll experience
> a distinct feeling of dropping as the elevator stops at the destination floor.
> Do most people jab desperately at the elevator buttons trying to stop it from
> falling, or do they ignore the sensation and look at the display in the
> elevator to verify that they are indeed stopping at the right floor and not
> descending again?
>
> I thus wonder whether the trouble some pilots have with misleading sensations
> in instrument flight is not a direct result of learning to depend excessively
> on sensations in visual flight (without realizing that the sensations are
> useless until visual information constantly corroborates them). If so, then
> never having learned to depend on sensation would be a great advantage in
> instrument flight.
>

Pilots who begin real flight training after using a sim are often at a
disadvantage because they learn to look inside the cockpit
excessively. A vfr pilot can tell what the plane is doing without
looking at instruments, by seeing, feeling and hearing. We sometimes
fly with all instruments covered up.. Much easier than you would
think, once you get used to looking outside and listening..

> > Sounds fine to me.. Nothing wrong with wanting to give passengers a
> > gentle, smooth ride with rate 1 turns...
>
> For me, that's good piloting. The less passengers feel, the better I'm doing.
>

Me too.. Smooth takeoffs, rate 1 turns and nice landings with great
scenery.. Which this country is famous for!

Mxsmanic

February 11th 07, 09:38 PM

chris writes:

> I would think there's more to it than that.. Just curious, what
> exactly do you consider instrument flying??

To me, instrument flight is flight that depends exclusively upon instruments
as the final authority for navigation and determining the aircraft's attitude,
heading, altitude, and so on.

I distinguish this from instrument conditions (IMC), which I consider to be
flight conditions that make any form of flight other than instrument flight
unsafe.

> I wonder if there may be a whole lot of stuff you maybe aren't aware
> of because you are self-taught.. If so, you would need to learn that
> stuff first...

I doubt it. I read the same stuff that people in formal training read.
There's always the question of flight instruction, but the more I read about
flight instructors, the more wary I am of their alleged utility in training
pilots. While some may be very good, it sounds like the majority are rather
mediocre.

> You still need to get off the ground, and to get the basic license to
> let you do that you need to learn how to fly VFR...

Only because that is a legal requirement.

> As I remember, as I was doing my scan, I'd come back to the AH for
> instance, and it would be different to how it was a few seconds ago,
> and I sure didn't feel the plane move. Then you roll level and you'd
> start to lean to one side, and so on...

But was it psychologically difficult to resist the sensations you felt
physically and force yourself to use the instruments, or were the sensations
just an unwanted distraction?

> Pilots who begin real flight training after using a sim are often at a
> disadvantage because they learn to look inside the cockpit
> excessively.

That's understandable. But pilots who have only known VFR for years would be
at a disadvantage when learning instruments because they look _outside_ the
cockpit excessively, and they depend too much on physical sensations.

> A vfr pilot can tell what the plane is doing without
> looking at instruments, by seeing, feeling and hearing.

Yes. But a big problem arises when those sensations become unreliable. And
in fact, they are all unreliable, anyway, except when reinforced by vision. A
pilot may think that he can fly based on sensation, but he can test that very
easily by flying with his eyes shut for a while, and then opening them and
seeing how far off he is from where he thought he would be.

> We sometimes
> fly with all instruments covered up.. Much easier than you would
> think, once you get used to looking outside and listening..

I'd consider VFR trivially easy compared to IFR.

> Me too.. Smooth takeoffs, rate 1 turns and nice landings with great
> scenery.. Which this country is famous for!

A good flight is one in which the passengers can watch the world go by as if
it were a movie. If they mention sensations after landing, it was too rough.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

chris[_1_]

February 11th 07, 10:12 PM

On Feb 12, 10:38 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I would think there's more to it than that.. Just curious, what
> > exactly do you consider instrument flying??
>
> To me, instrument flight is flight that depends exclusively upon instruments
> as the final authority for navigation and determining the aircraft's attitude,
> heading, altitude, and so on.
>
> I distinguish this from instrument conditions (IMC), which I consider to be
> flight conditions that make any form of flight other than instrument flight
> unsafe.
>
> > I wonder if there may be a whole lot of stuff you maybe aren't aware
> > of because you are self-taught.. If so, you would need to learn that
> > stuff first...
>
> I doubt it. I read the same stuff that people in formal training read.
> There's always the question of flight instruction, but the more I read about
> flight instructors, the more wary I am of their alleged utility in training
> pilots. While some may be very good, it sounds like the majority are rather
> mediocre.
>

I can't do anything other than speculate about IFR flying, as I know
next to nothing about it. So I will refrain from making any further
comments that are little more than guesses..
As for flight instructors, I know a number personally. I think you
might be getting a bad impression because people only write about
instructors when they are bad!!! Of the instructors I know, many are
pretty good, several are excellent, and a couple are bloody legends!!
I don't think I actually know an instructor I would class as
mediocre. For them to get to the stage of being able to instruct, the
training they go through is pretty damn rigorous, and they are
expected to uphold a pretty high standard.

Or maybe it's just our aero club that has all the good instructors??

> > You still need to get off the ground, and to get the basic license to
> > let you do that you need to learn how to fly VFR...
>
> Only because that is a legal requirement.

Nahh... You still gotta fly the aeroplane!!! And land it, and stuff
like that...

>
> > As I remember, as I was doing my scan, I'd come back to the AH for
> > instance, and it would be different to how it was a few seconds ago,
> > and I sure didn't feel the plane move. Then you roll level and you'd
> > start to lean to one side, and so on...
>
> But was it psychologically difficult to resist the sensations you felt
> physically and force yourself to use the instruments, or were the sensations
> just an unwanted distraction?

Yeah, it's unbelievably hard to trust the instruments when you are
leaning at 60 degress to the right but the plane aint!!

>
> > Pilots who begin real flight training after using a sim are often at a
> > disadvantage because they learn to look inside the cockpit
> > excessively.
>
> That's understandable. But pilots who have only known VFR for years would be
> at a disadvantage when learning instruments because they look _outside_ the
> cockpit excessively, and they depend too much on physical sensations.

I have no idea if that is true or not..
>
> > A vfr pilot can tell what the plane is doing without
> > looking at instruments, by seeing, feeling and hearing.
>
> Yes. But a big problem arises when those sensations become unreliable. And
> in fact, they are all unreliable, anyway, except when reinforced by vision. A
> pilot may think that he can fly based on sensation, but he can test that very
> easily by flying with his eyes shut for a while, and then opening them and
> seeing how far off he is from where he thought he would be.
>

Yeah, we know they are unreliable.. Vision is very important...

> > We sometimes
> > fly with all instruments covered up.. Much easier than you would
> > think, once you get used to looking outside and listening..
>
> I'd consider VFR trivially easy compared to IFR.

There is no way to know unless you were to do it, so I won't tell you
I think it isn't, because then it would just be my word against yours,
so I will just shut up now...

>
> > Me too.. Smooth takeoffs, rate 1 turns and nice landings with great
> > scenery.. Which this country is famous for!
>
> A good flight is one in which the passengers can watch the world go by as if
> it were a movie. If they mention sensations after landing, it was too rough.

No argument there..

Mike Young

February 11th 07, 10:31 PM

> On Feb 12, 6:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> information. So, is it harder to unlearn the dependence on physical
>> sensations that you've acquired while flying VFR in a moving aircraft, or
>> is
>> it harder to ignore unreliable sensations when you simply have never
>> depended
>> on them at all for flying (as in simulation).

Do you mean, unlearn basic airmanship before you can get proficient on
instruments?

My forehead would be a bloody red gash from continually bashing it against
my desk if I read your posts regularly.

Think of the instrument rating as meaning only that you are qualified to
operate as the controllers ask, without continual hand holding. Staying
upright and pointed in the desired direction is only incidental to that. In
that regard, sim flying is the antithesis of fitting into the airspace
system. Flittering about willy nilly randomly close-enough is the habit that
needs to be unlearned.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 12:04 AM

chris writes:

> As for flight instructors, I know a number personally. I think you
> might be getting a bad impression because people only write about
> instructors when they are bad!!! Of the instructors I know, many are
> pretty good, several are excellent, and a couple are bloody legends!!

What percentage are bad, what percentage are so-so, and what percentage are
good?

From what I read, most instructors are just trying to accumulate time so that
they can get lucrative jobs flying big iron. They don't really care about
teaching. If so, that's a bad attitude for an instructor to have, no matter
what subject he is teaching.

> Or maybe it's just our aero club that has all the good instructors??

Are they paid or working for free? The ones with no fundamental interest in
teaching would certainly not work for free, unless there were something else
in it for them.

> Nahh... You still gotta fly the aeroplane!!! And land it, and stuff
> like that...

But that's like learning to ride a bicycle.

> I have no idea if that is true or not..

Evidence that it might be true is the speed with which many VFR pilots get
into grave trouble as soon as they are deprived of visual information (as
during an encounter with IMC). If they didn't depend on that visual
information, they wouldn't have any difficulty. And if sensations could
really be trusted, they'd have no trouble. And if they weren't dependent on
sensations, they wouldn't have trouble. But they _do_ have trouble, which
implies that they depend a lot on sensations, even though sensations are
unreliable, and that they unconsciously depend most of all on visual
information.

> Yeah, we know they are unreliable.. Vision is very important...

And if sensations are unreliable, then being accustomed to them doesn't serve
much purpose.

> There is no way to know unless you were to do it, so I won't tell you
> I think it isn't, because then it would just be my word against yours,
> so I will just shut up now...

I am obviously speculating as well. But aviation is no different from a
thousand other areas of human endeavor, and many of the same principles apply.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 12:07 AM

Mike Young writes:

> Do you mean, unlearn basic airmanship before you can get proficient on
> instruments?

Basic airmanship is independent of sensation. The sensations pilots feel are
unreliable. They consider them reliable because they unconsciously reinforce
them with visual information, which usually _is_ reliable. Proof that
sensations are useless is easy to obtain, by depriving the pilot of visual
references. No matter how much experience he has, without instruments he
rapidly becomes disoriented. If sensations were reliable, that wouldn't
happen. And since in fact they are unreliable, learning about them isn't
really important, as they won't help you to fly.

> Think of the instrument rating as meaning only that you are qualified to
> operate as the controllers ask, without continual hand holding. Staying
> upright and pointed in the desired direction is only incidental to that.

IFR can exist independently of controllers.

> In that regard, sim flying is the antithesis of fitting into the airspace
> system.

Not when it is simulation of instrument flight and ATC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

chris[_1_]

February 12th 07, 01:04 AM

On Feb 12, 1:07 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Young writes:
> > Do you mean, unlearn basic airmanship before you can get proficient on
> > instruments?
>
> Basic airmanship is independent of sensation. The sensations pilots feel are
> unreliable. They consider them reliable because they unconsciously reinforce
> them with visual information, which usually _is_ reliable. Proof that
> sensations are useless is easy to obtain, by depriving the pilot of visual
> references. No matter how much experience he has, without instruments he
> rapidly becomes disoriented. If sensations were reliable, that wouldn't
> happen. And since in fact they are unreliable, learning about them isn't
> really important, as they won't help you to fly.
>

Umm, that logic is faulty... The other senses may be unreliable, but
that doesn't mean they don't help you fly. You can tell you are
climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance. Do
you suggest we disregard every clue the aircraft give you except for
visual clues because they are unreliable?? No.. That would be silly.
You can tell a lot by the seat of your pants and by listening, and
that helps you fly.. So we shouldn't disregard those senses. And we
certainly should learn about them. This is like your thread about
coordinated turns - we can feel the turn, so we should use that
feeling.

Jose

February 12th 07, 01:34 AM

> You can tell you are
> climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance.

Well, yes, but you can also feel (in the seat of your pants) that you
are climbing, when you aren't. As you said, the senses are unreliable,
and part of the skills of instrument flying is being =able= to disregard
those sensations when they disagree with the instruments.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Crash Lander[_1_]

February 12th 07, 01:49 AM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> I was referring to the comment about the 5 mile final previous to my
> post. IOW if some one calls in on a 5 mile final and I'm on down
> wind, I know I have at least two minutes or more (if he's telling the
> truth) to land. From my position in the pattern I should know if I
> have that much time. OTOH I call final when I pass the FAF for the
> GPS 24 or 06 approaches. That is about 5 miles out (5.1 to be
> specific) and I fly the approach at 120 MPH. That means I should get
> to the runway in 2 1/2 minutes. So calling final passing the FAF lets
> most of those in the area know where I am and about how much time they
> have.

If you're in the circuit, and about to turn base, or have just turned base,
but you've done a reasonably wide circuit, and another a/c calls a 5 mile
straight in final, what happens if you calculate that you will not get down
and clear before he lands? Do you contact the other a/c and advise him you
are already on base, or are already in the pattern, and ask him to join
downwind? or do you have to turn and extend your downwind because he called
final first? Obviously if you've just turned onto base, you've done your
base call, so he should know where you are, but he may not have heard you.
Oz Lander

Jose

February 12th 07, 02:06 AM

> If you're in the circuit, and about to turn base, or have just turned base,
> but you've done a reasonably wide circuit, and another a/c calls a 5 mile
> straight in final, what happens if you calculate that you will not get down
> and clear before he lands? Do you contact the other a/c and advise him you
> are already on base, or are already in the pattern, and ask him to join
> downwind?

I call and tell him where I am. We negotiate who will be first and who
will be second.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

chris[_1_]

February 12th 07, 03:02 AM

On Feb 12, 2:34 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > You can tell you are
> > climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance.
>
> Well, yes, but you can also feel (in the seat of your pants) that you
> are climbing, when you aren't. As you said, the senses are unreliable,
> and part of the skills of instrument flying is being =able= to disregard
> those sensations when they disagree with the instruments.
>

I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
about those senses because they don't help your flying..

Or did I read him wrong ???

Orval Fairbairn

February 12th 07, 04:25 AM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > If you're in the circuit, and about to turn base, or have just turned base,
> > but you've done a reasonably wide circuit, and another a/c calls a 5 mile
> > straight in final, what happens if you calculate that you will not get down
> > and clear before he lands? Do you contact the other a/c and advise him you
> > are already on base, or are already in the pattern, and ask him to join
> > downwind?
>
> I call and tell him where I am. We negotiate who will be first and who
> will be second.

Actually, since you are already in the pattern, and he is calling a
straight-in entry, he is not yet in the pattern! Therefore, you have the
ROW and he must adjust for you.

Don Tuite

February 12th 07, 05:23 AM

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:25:44 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> > If you're in the circuit, and about to turn base, or have just turned base,
>> > but you've done a reasonably wide circuit, and another a/c calls a 5 mile
>> > straight in final, what happens if you calculate that you will not get down
>> > and clear before he lands? Do you contact the other a/c and advise him you
>> > are already on base, or are already in the pattern, and ask him to join
>> > downwind?
>>
>> I call and tell him where I am. We negotiate who will be first and who
>> will be second.
>
>
>Actually, since you are already in the pattern, and he is calling a
>straight-in entry, he is not yet in the pattern! Therefore, you have the
>ROW and he must adjust for you.

There's some problem with that and 91/113g:

"(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while
landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of
this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has
already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final
approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the
purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the
right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in
front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft. "

The first part says somebody "on final" has RoW. The second says the
lower aircraft "approaching an airport for the purpose of landing"
has the RoW. Is the second part clarifying or contradicting the first
part?

Don

Crash Lander[_1_]

February 12th 07, 05:33 AM

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> The first part says somebody "on final" has RoW. The second says the
> lower aircraft "approaching an airport for the purpose of landing"
> has the RoW. Is the second part clarifying or contradicting the first
> part?
>
> Don

I'd say the second part clarifies it if 2 a/c are about to land. The a/c on
it's 5 mile final will most definitely be at a higher altitude than the one
who is at pattern altitude and is about to turn onto final. This reads to me
that the a/c already in the pattern has ROW over the a/c on a long final.
Oz Lander

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 05:49 AM

chris writes:

> Umm, that logic is faulty... The other senses may be unreliable, but
> that doesn't mean they don't help you fly.

If they are unreliable without visual confirmation, they are practically
useless.

> You can tell you are climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants,
> for instance.

How do you know that you are climbing and not turning? They feel the same.

> Do you suggest we disregard every clue the aircraft give you except for
> visual clues because they are unreliable??

No, but I suggest that people who cling desperately to physical sensations as
some sort of magic dividing line between flying in real life and flying in
simulation try to get a better grip.

> You can tell a lot by the seat of your pants and by listening, and
> that helps you fly.

As long as you can correlate it with other information, essentially visual.

Feeling something in the seat of your pants tells you that the status of the
aircraft has changed, but that's about it. To figure out exactly what has
happened, you need visual input, or instruments.

> This is like your thread about
> coordinated turns - we can feel the turn, so we should use that
> feeling.

Unfortunately, it feels just like a climb.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 05:50 AM

chris writes:

> I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
> about those senses because they don't help your flying..
>
> Or did I read him wrong ???

I'm not saying that you shouldn't learn about them. But you should treat them
as incidental ... useful tips that can come in handy. They are not
fundamental to most types of flying (aerobatics and some other domains
excepted--even then, nobody does aerobatics blindfolded).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 05:52 AM

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> Actually, since you are already in the pattern, and he is calling a
> straight-in entry, he is not yet in the pattern! Therefore, you have the
> ROW and he must adjust for you.

But if he is coming straight in, isn't he on final, and thus given the right
of way?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Don Tuite

February 12th 07, 06:25 AM

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:33:25 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
wrote:

>"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>> The first part says somebody "on final" has RoW. The second says the
>> lower aircraft "approaching an airport for the purpose of landing"
>> has the RoW. Is the second part clarifying or contradicting the first
>> part?
>>
>> Don
>
>I'd say the second part clarifies it if 2 a/c are about to land. The a/c on
>it's 5 mile final will most definitely be at a higher altitude than the one
>who is at pattern altitude and is about to turn onto final. This reads to me
>that the a/c already in the pattern has ROW over the a/c on a long final.
>Oz Lander

Just for the sake of argument, what if the lower aircraft is on
downwind? On the 45?

Don

Roger[_4_]

February 12th 07, 08:13 AM

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:49:14 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
wrote:

>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> I was referring to the comment about the 5 mile final previous to my
>> post. IOW if some one calls in on a 5 mile final and I'm on down
>> wind, I know I have at least two minutes or more (if he's telling the
>> truth) to land. From my position in the pattern I should know if I
>> have that much time. OTOH I call final when I pass the FAF for the
>> GPS 24 or 06 approaches. That is about 5 miles out (5.1 to be
>> specific) and I fly the approach at 120 MPH. That means I should get
>> to the runway in 2 1/2 minutes. So calling final passing the FAF lets
>> most of those in the area know where I am and about how much time they
>> have.
>
>If you're in the circuit, and about to turn base, or have just turned base,
>but you've done a reasonably wide circuit, and another a/c calls a 5 mile

Normally I keep fairly close in and fly down wind no more than about a
half mile out. I'll also be moving faster than *most* of the other
traffic so it depends on what's coming in and how fast. If he's
really 5 miles out even if I fly a mile wide pattern he'll be 4 miles
to my right at that point and we *should* be traveling at about the
same speed. That means if I continue on I'll be 3 miles ahead of him
when I turn final which is plenty of room. BUT never take anything for
granted.

>straight in final, what happens if you calculate that you will not get down
>and clear before he lands? Do you contact the other a/c and advise him you

First I'd calculate if I could land long. If not, I'd simply either
turn back down wind, or do a couple of 360s. Again it depends on
what's ahead of and behind me and how close. *Generally* I'd figure if
I had just turned base I'd easily be able to make a right 90 and
extend the down wind unless the guy behind was tail gating. Generally
I'm far more concerned if the guy ahead of me is going to clear the
runway or just taxi the next half mile down the center line.

Here we have 4 taxiways off 06/24 which means I can normally be off
the runway about 20 seconds after the mains are down. It takes
practice but I can normally put the mains on so I can make the next
turn off without excessive braking and without having to add power. If
I miss a turn off it's going to add about another 20 to 30 seconds.

OTOH, unless I'm sure I can do what I have planned I will try to err
on the cautious side

>are already on base, or are already in the pattern, and ask him to join
>downwind? or do you have to turn and extend your downwind because he called
>final first? Obviously if you've just turned onto base, you've done your
>base call, so he should know where you are, but he may not have heard you.
>Oz Lander

The only safe assumptions are not to assume.
Actually I've had something like this happen a number of times.
I had announced I was on down when an SR-22 announced 5 mile final on
the GPS-06 approach. She was going to do a 360 and I told her not to
worry, just go ahead and land as she'd be on the ground by the time I
turned final Had it been a Cub or even 172 it would have been the
other way around. I've also been on final when an ag plane pulled up
to the hold line in front of the terminal which is about 1200 feet
from the end of the runway. I told them if they were ready to just
go ahead as they had plenty of time. If they had a problem on the
runway I was far enough out I could just go around.

I have a very wide margin as to what I fly for pattern speed and how
far out I turn base. I'm used to having ATC request I keep the speed
up so I've had lots of practice on knowing just how far out and up I
have to be and at what speed. In the Deb I have the advantage of using
the gear and partial flaps as brakes. When the gear goes out it really
does feel like some one put on the brakes

The old Cherokee 180 used to be very good at speed control as well.
Pull the power and a couple of slipping S-turns would slow it in a
hurry. With a steep final it could make some very short, short field
landings. I found the 172 to be by far the most sensitive to wanting
to float. My instructors had me doing S-turns and slips to slow down
and get down early on as a primary student. I did most of my primary
training in the Cherokee 180 although in a previous life many years
before I had about 20 hours in a Piper Colt.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 12th 07, 08:42 AM

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:31:30 GMT, "Mike Young"
> wrote:

>> On Feb 12, 6:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> information. So, is it harder to unlearn the dependence on physical
>>> sensations that you've acquired while flying VFR in a moving aircraft, or
>>> is
>>> it harder to ignore unreliable sensations when you simply have never
>>> depended
>>> on them at all for flying (as in simulation).

I'm not so sure as I'd agree with that as we depend on those
sensations in our every day lives. Whether a new comer or veteran
those sensations, or bodily feed back are very difficult to ignore.
Some problems do crop up from a long life of flying VFR in docile
planes such as depending on the VSI for holding altitude instead of
the altimeter. CFIIs must get tired of saying "remember the VSI is a
*trend* instrument" Once it's indicating a climb or descent that climb
or descent has already been established, while you can catch it right
off the bat when watching the altimeter.

>
>Do you mean, unlearn basic airmanship before you can get proficient on
>instruments?

We all learn bad habits. Think of the drivers on the road who start
making up their own "rules of the road" <:-)) I try to fly with an
instructor at least once a quarter to make sure I'm not getting any
bad habits ingrained.
>
>My forehead would be a bloody red gash from continually bashing it against
>my desk if I read your posts regularly.
>
>Think of the instrument rating as meaning only that you are qualified to
>operate as the controllers ask, without continual hand holding. Staying
>upright and pointed in the desired direction is only incidental to that. In
>that regard, sim flying is the antithesis of fitting into the airspace
>system. Flittering about willy nilly randomly close-enough is the habit that
>needs to be unlearned.
>
Some sims are good at teaching procedures and work well when used in
conjunction with real life experience. So does setting up a scanner to
listen to both a nearby approach and tower.

Although not set in stone you learn to expect what you are going to
hear, when and where. You also lean if any of those conditions are
not met it's time to call approach and ask. the numbers may be
different, but you normally hear the same things in the same order at
the same place and time. Actually it might be a good idea to write
down those clearances you hear on the radio and then read them back as
if you were the pilot of the plane receiving the clearance. There are
also specific times you are expected to call in such as when
established in a hold and when leaving a hold, or when reaching a
mandatory reporting point.

Some times when flying IFR late at night it seems like they are
calling in periodically just to make sure you are awake, or they are
trying to stay awake. I flew with Minneapolis Center one night for
well over an hour. I was the only plane I head them work in that
sector under 18,000. In many parts of the country not much happens
below class A airspace after 11:00 PM.

A couple days before on a trip to the west between 8 and 9 AM with
most of Michigan socked in. Low ceilings and tops around 7,000 The
controllers were busier than a one armed paper hanger with the itch.
That day I was going to Oshkosh (not during the fly in). When I take
off MBS departure passes me off to Cleveland Center, but within just a
few miles I get passed off to Minneapolis center which is usually
before I've leveled off. The radio was solid traffic and once on top I
was constantly looking for that traffic, but I saw none. At that
altitude crossing Lake Michigan "as I recall" Minneapolis center
passes me to Green Bay approach, who passes me to Chicago Center who
does the approach work for Whitman field and I don't get passed to the
tower until the FAF for what ever approach. Steve might refresh my
mind on that one as it's been a few years since flying into OSH.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 12th 07, 08:45 AM

On 11 Feb 2007 17:04:05 -0800, "chris" >
wrote:

>On Feb 12, 1:07 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Mike Young writes:
>> > Do you mean, unlearn basic airmanship before you can get proficient on
>> > instruments?
>>
>> Basic airmanship is independent of sensation. The sensations pilots feel are
>> unreliable. They consider them reliable because they unconsciously reinforce
>> them with visual information, which usually _is_ reliable. Proof that
>> sensations are useless is easy to obtain, by depriving the pilot of visual
>> references. No matter how much experience he has, without instruments he
>> rapidly becomes disoriented. If sensations were reliable, that wouldn't
>> happen. And since in fact they are unreliable, learning about them isn't
>> really important, as they won't help you to fly.
>>
>
>Umm, that logic is faulty... The other senses may be unreliable, but
>that doesn't mean they don't help you fly. You can tell you are
>climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance. Do

So does the positive G when inverted while going over the top in a
loop.

>you suggest we disregard every clue the aircraft give you except for
>visual clues because they are unreliable?? No.. That would be silly.
>You can tell a lot by the seat of your pants and by listening, and

There is little the seat of your pants can tell you under instrument
contitions except the amount of G you are pulling and whether you need
to go to the bathroom.

>that helps you fly.. So we shouldn't disregard those senses. And we
>certainly should learn about them. This is like your thread about
>coordinated turns - we can feel the turn, so we should use that
>feeling.

I can put you upside down and give you that same feeling and you will
never know you are inverted.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Tony

February 12th 07, 08:48 AM

So speaks a two dimensional person instructing those who live in a
three dimensional world.

On Feb 12, 12:50 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
> > about those senses because they don't help your flying..
>
> > Or did I read him wrong ???
>
> I'm not saying that you shouldn't learn about them. But you should treat them
> as incidental ... useful tips that can come in handy. They are not
> fundamental to most types of flying (aerobatics and some other domains
> excepted--even then, nobody does aerobatics blindfolded).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Roger[_4_]

February 12th 07, 09:05 AM

On 11 Feb 2007 19:02:09 -0800, "chris" >
wrote:

>On Feb 12, 2:34 pm, Jose > wrote:
>> > You can tell you are
>> > climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance.
>>
>> Well, yes, but you can also feel (in the seat of your pants) that you
>> are climbing, when you aren't. As you said, the senses are unreliable,
>> and part of the skills of instrument flying is being =able= to disregard
>> those sensations when they disagree with the instruments.
>>
>
>I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
>about those senses because they don't help your flying..
>
>Or did I read him wrong ???

I'm sure I'll hate myself for this, but... SOMETIMES he sorta, almost,
print near, gets thing right, be it on purpose or accidental, but be
careful with the phrasing.

Please let me rephrase it into a pilot's words which I hope are more
helpful.

There are two types of flying for most of us. Flying in VMC and
flying in IMC. "I see" these two types of flying as being worlds
apart both physiologically and Physiologically. They take different
mind sets and skill sets although both include basic airman ship.

In flying VFR or flying under visual flight rules in visual
metrological conditions we depend on all of our natural skills.
Vision, sound, balance, seat of the pants, and even the strength to
push or pull a control. We learn to use the instruments while using
the outside world for our horizon reference point and we lean to
navigate using what we see outside. Those who use only the radios or
GPS for navigation are not only setting up a bad dependency, but
missing out on one of the best parts of VFR flight. If you want a
real challenge, instead of flying around at 3,000 to 5,000 feet, get a
Cub or other simple plane and do a long cross country while staying
down low and do it without relying on GPS. It's a whole different
world and can give a real appreciation to flying by using a map,
ruler, compass and watch. It is far, far easier to get lost down low
than up higher. <:-))

When flying under Instrument flight rules (IFR) in instrument
metrological conditions (IMC) we sill use basic airmanship, but we
have to ignore our five senses at least part of the time and rely on
the instruments. If they disagree the instruments are *probably* right
and our senses wrong. That is where our training comes in and we can
recognize when a specific instrument or set of instruments are
failing. Flying IFR requires much more precision than flight under VFR
and it is far less forgiving than flight under VFR. Even if you never
use the rating it can and most likely will make the pilot a better
pilot.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

chris[_1_]

February 12th 07, 09:17 AM

On Feb 12, 10:05 pm, Roger > wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2007 19:02:09 -0800, "chris" >
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 12, 2:34 pm, Jose > wrote:
> >> > You can tell you are
> >> > climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance.
>
> >> Well, yes, but you can also feel (in the seat of your pants) that you
> >> are climbing, when you aren't. As you said, the senses are unreliable,
> >> and part of the skills of instrument flying is being =able= to disregard
> >> those sensations when they disagree with the instruments.
>
> >I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
> >about those senses because they don't help your flying..
>
> >Or did I read him wrong ???
>
> I'm sure I'll hate myself for this, but... SOMETIMES he sorta, almost,
> print near, gets thing right, be it on purpose or accidental, but be
> careful with the phrasing.
>
> Please let me rephrase it into a pilot's words which I hope are more
> helpful.
>
> There are two types of flying for most of us. Flying in VMC and
> flying in IMC. "I see" these two types of flying as being worlds
> apart both physiologically and Physiologically. They take different
> mind sets and skill sets although both include basic airman ship.
>
> In flying VFR or flying under visual flight rules in visual
> metrological conditions we depend on all of our natural skills.
> Vision, sound, balance, seat of the pants, and even the strength to
> push or pull a control. We learn to use the instruments while using
> the outside world for our horizon reference point and we lean to
> navigate using what we see outside. Those who use only the radios or
> GPS for navigation are not only setting up a bad dependency, but
> missing out on one of the best parts of VFR flight. If you want a
> real challenge, instead of flying around at 3,000 to 5,000 feet, get a
> Cub or other simple plane and do a long cross country while staying
> down low and do it without relying on GPS. It's a whole different
> world and can give a real appreciation to flying by using a map,
> ruler, compass and watch. It is far, far easier to get lost down low
> than up higher. <:-))
>
> When flying under Instrument flight rules (IFR) in instrument
> metrological conditions (IMC) we sill use basic airmanship, but we
> have to ignore our five senses at least part of the time and rely on
> the instruments. If they disagree the instruments are *probably* right
> and our senses wrong. That is where our training comes in and we can
> recognize when a specific instrument or set of instruments are
> failing. Flying IFR requires much more precision than flight under VFR
> and it is far less forgiving than flight under VFR. Even if you never
> use the rating it can and most likely will make the pilot a better
> pilot.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

Excellent. I, of course am only speaking from a VFR pilot's
perspective so it is good to hear both sides of the equation.

Oz Lander[_2_]

February 12th 07, 10:21 AM

Don Tuite wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:33:25 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> The first part says somebody "on final" has RoW. The second says
> the >> lower aircraft "approaching an airport for the purpose of
> landing" >> has the RoW. Is the second part clarifying or
> contradicting the first >> part?
> > >
> >> Don
> >
> > I'd say the second part clarifies it if 2 a/c are about to land.
> > The a/c on it's 5 mile final will most definitely be at a higher
> > altitude than the one who is at pattern altitude and is about to
> > turn onto final. This reads to me that the a/c already in the
> > pattern has ROW over the a/c on a long final. Oz Lander
>
> Just for the sake of argument, what if the lower aircraft is on
> downwind? On the 45?
>
> Don

Well, if the low a/c was on the downwind, it's possible the a/c on the
5 mile final would get down before the downwind a/c. Having said that,
the a/c on downwind can easily extend the downwind leg to allow the 5
mile final a/c to land. An a/c on base cannot extend the leg to allow
the 5 miler to land.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Oz Lander[_2_]

February 12th 07, 10:22 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>
> > Actually, since you are already in the pattern, and he is calling a
> > straight-in entry, he is not yet in the pattern! Therefore, you
> > have the ROW and he must adjust for you.
>
> But if he is coming straight in, isn't he on final, and thus given
> the right of way?

If thye a/c on base is at a lower altitude, which he most likely will
be, then no. The a/c on base has ROW.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Jose

February 12th 07, 01:41 PM

> I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
> about those senses because they don't help your flying..
>
> Or did I read him wrong ???

What he says isn't always what I think he has in mind. But that's often
true of all of us. :) As you point out, in instrument conditions the
senses are misleading, and one must rely on the instruments. Senses can
give hints as to what's going on, and those hints can be helpful or
dangerous. Instrument flying involves sorting this out, which visual
flying does not require.

It looks like a case of two people saying the same thing differnetly,
and being misinterpreted.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

February 12th 07, 01:41 PM

> Actually, since you are already in the pattern, and he is calling a
> straight-in entry, he is not yet in the pattern! Therefore, you have the
> ROW and he must adjust for you.

Maybe... but I wouldn't count on him doing it. I'll speak up.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Buck Murdock

February 12th 07, 02:17 PM

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There's always the question of flight instruction, but the more I read about
> flight instructors, the more wary I am of their alleged utility in training
> pilots. While some may be very good, it sounds like the majority are rather
> mediocre.

I've taught hundreds of pilots to fly. The worst ones, BY FAR, were the
ones who came to me with hundreds of hours of simulator-game time. They
thought they knew what they were doing, and got a rude awakening when
they tried to fly a real plane.

Those with a lot of sim experience consistently required more hours and
more training to learn to fly, when compared with someone who had no
simulator or airplane time at all. You're learning lots of bad habits
in the simulators, but you don't know it, because you have nothing with
which to compare it.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 02:34 PM

Roger writes:

> ... and we lean to navigate using what we see outside.

You must be really heavy!

> Those who use only the radios or
> GPS for navigation are not only setting up a bad dependency, but
> missing out on one of the best parts of VFR flight. If you want a
> real challenge, instead of flying around at 3,000 to 5,000 feet, get a
> Cub or other simple plane and do a long cross country while staying
> down low and do it without relying on GPS. It's a whole different
> world and can give a real appreciation to flying by using a map,
> ruler, compass and watch. It is far, far easier to get lost down low
> than up higher. <:-))

The less sophisticated the instruments I use to navigate, the more difficult
it becomes to avoid getting lost.

Last night, going from KDEN to Aspen on a route that had been suggested to me
here to avoid the mountains, I vowed to use only VORs for RNAV. To that end,
I worked out my routing in advance, developing my own waypoints that were
either the VORs themselves or radials and DME distances from the VORs. I used
a sectional to actually plot the route. When I actually executed this, in
near total darkness (occasionally I'd see a glimpse of trees below, or a
highway, or the lights of a town or airport), I still got lost, because I had
forgotten one small leg on the route that was needed to get me past some of
the many mountains in the area. I spent 20 minutes puzzling over what seemed
like an abnormally great distance from one VOR (HBU, if you must know) that
didn't seem to be diminishing according to plan, and finally I happened to
look up to see the trees of a very large mountain looping a few thousand feet
ahead. Not knowing exactly where I was, it seemed to me that the only safe
path was an immediate 180-degree turn to retract my path back to the last fix
that I knew to be correct. As I went back, I stepped through the route again
checking each point, and then I found what I had missed on the chart. Since I
was in flight and a good distance from the nearest VORs, I used dead reckoning
from the last good fix to get through the small pass that I needed to
traverse, and then when I found myself back on an expected radial at an
expected distance, I was able to continue.

All the while I was perilously close to the mountains. And I had the
advantage of minimal turbulence, something I'd probably not be able to enjoy
in real life. I don't think I'd try navigating through the mountains to Aspen
in real life, but it was certainly good exercise in the sim.

Of course, the "real" pilots here may laugh at all this, but unless they've
actually navigated in the Rockies at night in a real aircraft -or- simulated
it in a simulator as I have, I now know more about this type of navigation
than they do, because I've done it, and they have not. Were I ever to get
into a real-life situation like this, I'd have a distinct advantage.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 02:36 PM

Roger writes:

> I can put you upside down and give you that same feeling and you will
> never know you are inverted.

And unfortunately some VFR pilots end up in exactly that position in real
life, once they are stuck in IMC. They only find out when the ground hits
them from above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 02:51 PM

Roger writes:

> I'm not so sure as I'd agree with that as we depend on those
> sensations in our every day lives. Whether a new comer or veteran
> those sensations, or bodily feed back are very difficult to ignore.
> Some problems do crop up from a long life of flying VFR in docile
> planes such as depending on the VSI for holding altitude instead of
> the altimeter. CFIIs must get tired of saying "remember the VSI is a
> *trend* instrument" Once it's indicating a climb or descent that climb
> or descent has already been established, while you can catch it right
> off the bat when watching the altimeter.

How often am I supposed to look at the VSI? I almost never look at it,
_unless_ I need to attain or maintain a specific rate of climb or descent.
The rest of the time I look at the altimeter. My logic is that the altimeter
will tell me immediately of any change in altitude, and that I generally need
to maintain an altitude much more than I need to maintain a vertical speed.
The VSI also seems to tell me things I should have already known: if it shows
a steep descent, for example, by the time it shows me that, it's already past
the time where I should have corrected for it. An altimeter shows me
immediately.

In practice, I don't think I'd pay much attention to the VSI unless I were
forced to maintain a specific vertical speed (by an instructor, an examiner,
or a procedure or ATC). But even people like ATC don't care much about your
vertical speed as long as you get to your assigned altitude within a certain
window.

I don't know what Real Pilots (tm) do, but I primarily look at the attitude
indicator, the airspeed indicator, and the altimeter, not necessarily in that
order, but almost continously (I guess that's what is meant by a "scan"). The
rest I don't watch too much for the aviating part of flying. For the
navigating part, I primarily watch the EHSI, which combines a lot of other
individual instruments into one display. I do have individual instruments for
back-up if the EHSI fails. Very occasionally I look at the GPS. The GPS
serves as an additional method for triple-checking my position. It also is
useful for finding and maintaining a specific track in windy conditions, and
it's handy for double-checking that I'm not entering any airspace that I
shouldn't. Occasionally I use it as a reference to find nearby VORs or
airports.

Once all that is out of the way, I periodically look at the engine and fuel
gauges to see if I need to change the mixture or prop and to make sure that I
still have enough fuel to get where I want to go. I did more of that last
night since flying between 14,000-foot mountains made me acutely aware of the
need for good climb rates and the need to have at least some idea of which
airports might be nearby if I should run out of fuel (I had plenty when I left
but I spent so much time getting unlost that I started to run rather low).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 03:10 PM

Buck Murdock writes:

> I've taught hundreds of pilots to fly. The worst ones, BY FAR, were the
> ones who came to me with hundreds of hours of simulator-game time. They
> thought they knew what they were doing, and got a rude awakening when
> they tried to fly a real plane.

Some instructors say the opposite. Perhaps the instructors see what they
expect to see. If they hate sims, they'll always see "problems" related to
any use of a sim by a student; if they love sims, they'll always insist that
sim time greatly accelerated the student's learning. The reality is less
variable and surely somewhere in between.

> Those with a lot of sim experience consistently required more hours and
> more training to learn to fly, when compared with someone who had no
> simulator or airplane time at all. You're learning lots of bad habits
> in the simulators, but you don't know it, because you have nothing with
> which to compare it.

I'll take that risk. The comparisons I've done thus far do not support your
assertion.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder

February 12th 07, 04:58 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I'll take that risk. The comparisons I've done thus far do not
> support your assertion.

What "risk?" You are, as usual taking no risk at all because, as you have
pointed out, you have no interest in flying real aircraft.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 06:28 PM

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> What "risk?" You are, as usual taking no risk at all because, as you have
> pointed out, you have no interest in flying real aircraft.

I have no resources to fly real aircraft; I do have an interest in it,
although how frequently I'd want to do it if given the opportunity is an open
question.

The risk I'm taking is that thousands of hours of simulation might work
against me if I train for a real license. However, I consider this an
extremely small risk. If I get an instructor with an anti-sim chip weighing
down his shoulder, I'll find a different instructor, one born after 1914.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder

February 12th 07, 07:27 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> What "risk?" You are, as usual taking no risk at all because, as you
>> have pointed out, you have no interest in flying real aircraft.
>
> I have no resources to fly real aircraft; I do have an interest in it,
> although how frequently I'd want to do it if given the opportunity is
> an open question.
>
> The risk I'm taking is that thousands of hours of simulation might
> work against me if I train for a real license. However, I consider
> this an extremely small risk. If I get an instructor with an anti-
> sim chip weighing down his shoulder, I'll find a different
> instructor, one born after 1914.

You seem to be changing your story as far as your fear level when it come to
real aircraft. That aside,should you decide some day to learn to fly real
aircraft and you relate to your instructor as you do to pilots here I'm sure
you will get the chance to sample the instruction techniques of MANY
instructors.

[email protected]

February 12th 07, 08:02 PM

On Feb 12, 9:58 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > I'll take that risk. The comparisons I've done thus far do not
> > support your assertion.
>
> What "risk?" You are, as usual taking no risk at all because, as you have
> pointed out, you have no interest in flying real aircraft.

Oh, there's plenty of risk. Wait until he flies his simulator
into rain and gets electrocuted.

Dan

Tony

February 12th 07, 08:21 PM

Oh, with the sense of servce some of us had in France, I really hope
this 2 D person ventures into 3 D space with a French instructor.

On Feb 12, 3:02 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:58 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > > I'll take that risk. The comparisons I've done thus far do not
> > > support your assertion.
>
> > What "risk?" You are, as usual taking no risk at all because, as you have
> > pointed out, you have no interest in flying real aircraft.
>
> Oh, there's plenty of risk. Wait until he flies his simulator
> into rain and gets electrocuted.
>
> Dan

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 08:59 PM

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You seem to be changing your story as far as your fear level when it come to
> real aircraft.

No, I'm only correcting your long-standing and inaccurate inferences.

> That aside,should you decide some day to learn to fly real
> aircraft and you relate to your instructor as you do to pilots here I'm sure
> you will get the chance to sample the instruction techniques of MANY
> instructors.

Possibly, but one good instructor is worth dozens of bad ones.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 08:59 PM

Tony writes:

> Oh, with the sense of servce some of us had in France, I really hope
> this 2 D person ventures into 3 D space with a French instructor.

If I took flying lessons, it would be in the U.S. I'm not interested in
French aviation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder

February 12th 07, 09:19 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> That aside,should you decide some day to learn to fly real
>> aircraft and you relate to your instructor as you do to pilots here
>> I'm sure you will get the chance to sample the instruction
>> techniques of MANY instructors.
>
> Possibly, but one good instructor is worth dozens of bad ones.

Your problem will be is that there are enough good students out there that a
good instructor wouldn't put up with you long.

Mxsmanic

February 12th 07, 09:40 PM

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Your problem will be is that there are enough good students out there that a
> good instructor wouldn't put up with you long.

I'm usually a good student. I won't put up with poor instructors, however.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mike Young

February 13th 07, 02:45 AM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:31:30 GMT, "Mike Young"
> > wrote:
>>Do you mean, unlearn basic airmanship before you can get proficient on
>>instruments?
>
> We all learn bad habits. Think of the drivers on the road who start
> making up their own "rules of the road" <:-)) I try to fly with an
> instructor at least once a quarter to make sure I'm not getting any
> bad habits ingrained.

Scratching my head on that one, Roger. I spent more time in the past two
weeks with my instructor than my wife. No room for bad habits here. (One
good thing about Part 141 CFIs putting in their time for the commercial.
They're mean and ornery at a level they just can't hide, sitting there elbow
to elbow a few hours at a time. As messed up as it sounds, I'm pleased with
that arrangement.)

Steven P. McNicoll

February 14th 07, 11:27 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Of course they do. But the "belong" on final as part of the regular,
> expected pattern.
>

Why only then?

>
> Some of the posters have some reasonable situations for straight-ins.
> But if you're flying the usual 4 or 6 banger at the usual speeds, you
> are best and safest joining the pattern in the usual, expected manner
> to get where you belong. Calling final 10 miles out doesn't cut it.
>

Why not?

>
> I don't see it often, but a couple times while flying a glider in the
> pattern, I had pilots call a long final, and I couldn't even see them
> anywhere. Sure, I had the right of way, but.....
>

What gave you the right-of-way? How did you determine right-of-way was an
issue?

Jim[_13_]

February 14th 07, 10:17 PM

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:27:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Of course they do. But the "belong" on final as part of the regular,
>> expected pattern.
>>
>
>Why only then?
>
>
>>
>> Some of the posters have some reasonable situations for straight-ins.
>> But if you're flying the usual 4 or 6 banger at the usual speeds, you
>> are best and safest joining the pattern in the usual, expected manner
>> to get where you belong. Calling final 10 miles out doesn't cut it.
>>
>
>Why not?
>
>
>>
>> I don't see it often, but a couple times while flying a glider in the
>> pattern, I had pilots call a long final, and I couldn't even see them
>> anywhere. Sure, I had the right of way, but.....
>>
>
>What gave you the right-of-way? How did you determine right-of-way was an
>issue?
>

OK, let's just forget about right-of-way for a minute. In my view,
and I'm more than happy to accept that this is JUST MY OWN VIEW,
is that it is at best inconsiderate for a pilot to fly an extended
straight-in final that is not required by an instrument approach.

Tony

February 14th 07, 10:34 PM

If it's an uncontrolled airport and there are people in the pattern
(meaning it's probably VFR), it would be prudent to join the pattern
on the upwind leg. Arguing about who had the ROW with airplanes is
something lawyers would be doing at the wrongful death hearing.

. On Feb 14, 5:17 pm, Jim > wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:27:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >> Of course they do. But the "belong" on final as part of the regular,
> >> expected pattern.
>
> >Why only then?
>
> >> Some of the posters have some reasonable situations for straight-ins.
> >> But if you're flying the usual 4 or 6 banger at the usual speeds, you
> >> are best and safest joining the pattern in the usual, expected manner
> >> to get where you belong. Calling final 10 miles out doesn't cut it.
>
> >Why not?
>
> >> I don't see it often, but a couple times while flying a glider in the
> >> pattern, I had pilots call a long final, and I couldn't even see them
> >> anywhere. Sure, I had the right of way, but.....
>
> >What gave you the right-of-way? How did you determine right-of-way was an
> >issue?
>
> OK, let's just forget about right-of-way for a minute. In my view,
> and I'm more than happy to accept that this is JUST MY OWN VIEW,
> is that it is at best inconsiderate for a pilot to fly an extended
> straight-in final that is not required by an instrument approach.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[email protected]

February 15th 07, 02:27 AM

On Feb 14, 4:27 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > Of course they do. But the "belong" on final as part of the regular,
> > expected pattern.
>
> Why only then?
>
>
>
> > Some of the posters have some reasonable situations for straight-ins.
> > But if you're flying the usual 4 or 6 banger at the usual speeds, you
> > are best and safest joining the pattern in the usual, expected manner
> > to get where you belong. Calling final 10 miles out doesn't cut it.
>
> Why not?
>
>
>
> > I don't see it often, but a couple times while flying a glider in the
> > pattern, I had pilots call a long final, and I couldn't even see them
> > anywhere. Sure, I had the right of way, but.....
>
> What gave you the right-of-way? How did you determine right-of-way was an
> issue?

FAR 91.113.
1. In distress, ROW over anything
2. Balloon, ROW over any other category
3. Glider, ROW over airship, powered parachute, airplane, or
rotorcraft
......

The obvious reason at the airport is that a glider can't perform a go-
around; the powered airplane can. Consequently, if a powered aircraft
tries to call a long final while a glider is in the pattern, life can
get interesting unless the glider has an alternate and can get there
safely. It would be most unseemly to call a final and force a glider
into a landout situation.

[email protected]

February 15th 07, 02:32 AM

On Feb 14, 3:34 pm, "Tony" > wrote:
> If it's an uncontrolled airport and there are people in the pattern
> (meaning it's probably VFR), it would be prudent to join the pattern
> on the upwind leg. Arguing about who had the ROW with airplanes is
> something lawyers would be doing at the wrongful death hearing.

Agreed.
Of course, I wasn't arguing with anybody. I had my eyes glued to the
direction I expected the airplane to come from, while trying not to
get overly worried, because I was a solo glider student and had my
hands full anyway! My point is that there is no way I can just extend
my downwind more than a little bit. I'm landing; the only question is
where.

Roger[_4_]

February 15th 07, 07:52 AM

On 14 Feb 2007 14:34:45 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:

>If it's an uncontrolled airport and there are people in the pattern
>(meaning it's probably VFR), it would be prudent to join the pattern
>on the upwind leg. Arguing about who had the ROW with airplanes is
>something lawyers would be doing at the wrongful death hearing.

Here in the states the "recommended" entry is on the *down wind*.
As I've said many times, up wind entries scare me as they often cross
the departure path right around where I hit pattern altitude. That
puts us in spots difficult for each other to see.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Tony

February 15th 07, 12:51 PM

The upwind joining gives the approaching airplane a good opportunity
to see the departing traffic -- I think it's a better choice than
flying a long straight in at an uncontrolled airport. I do agree with
you that entering the pattern at about midfield on the downwind is
still better, but my real life objection to that given the model we're
discussing -- an approach to the airport from a long way out along the
extended centerline of the active -- I feel safer arriving near the
airport at pattern altitude, moving off the center line and entering
on the upwind leg. I think it's better to do that in terms of seeing
departing and converging traffic than it is to somehow circle around
to the other side a couple of miles from the runway and fishook into a
45 degree entry leg.

However -- and this is a big one -- if I'm not sure what's going on at
the airport in terms of the active or traffic, I'll not go down to
pattern altitude, but overfly the runway to eyeball the situation,
then turn to what seems to be the downwind side and enter the pattern
on a conventional 45 degree leg to downwind. As it happens, those
circumstances have not presented themselves very often, probably
because the few uncontrolled fields I do fly into are fairly busy and
have active unicoms.

trafficOn Feb 15, 2:52 am, Roger > wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2007 14:34:45 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:
>
> >If it's an uncontrolled airport and there are people in the pattern
> >(meaning it's probably VFR), it would be prudent to join the pattern
> >on the upwind leg. Arguing about who had the ROW with airplanes is
> >something lawyers would be doing at the wrongful death hearing.
>
> Here in the states the "recommended" entry is on the *down wind*.
> As I've said many times, up wind entries scare me as they often cross
> the departure path right around where I hit pattern altitude. That
> puts us in spots difficult for each other to see.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

Mxsmanic

February 15th 07, 08:15 PM

Tony writes:

> The upwind joining gives the approaching airplane a good opportunity
> to see the departing traffic ...

Right down to the color of the departing pilots' eyes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Theune

February 15th 07, 09:23 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tony writes:
>
>> The upwind joining gives the approaching airplane a good opportunity
>> to see the departing traffic ...
>
> Right down to the color of the departing pilots' eyes.
>
You must have incredible vision to see the color of a pilots eyes from
more then 1/2 mile away. The upwind leg is on the opposite side of the
runway from the downwind at the same distance from the runway as the
downwind leg. You of course knew this because you had read about
traffic patterns and spend 30 seconds googling the term upwind traffic
pattern.

Steven P. McNicoll

February 15th 07, 10:04 PM

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:Ya4Bh.4061$103.2003@trndny05...
>>
>> Right down to the color of the departing pilots' eyes.
>>
>
> You must have incredible vision to see the color of a pilots eyes from
> more then 1/2 mile away. The upwind leg is on the opposite side of the
> runway from the downwind at the same distance from the runway as the
> downwind leg. You of course knew this because you had read about traffic
> patterns and spend 30 seconds googling the term upwind traffic pattern.
>

What would a departing pilot be doing on the downwind leg?

Tony

February 15th 07, 10:07 PM

Touch and goes come to mind.

On Feb 15, 5:04 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "John Theune" > wrote in message
>
> news:Ya4Bh.4061$103.2003@trndny05...
>
>
>
> >> Right down to the color of the departing pilots' eyes.
>
> > You must have incredible vision to see the color of a pilots eyes from
> > more then 1/2 mile away. The upwind leg is on the opposite side of the
> > runway from the downwind at the same distance from the runway as the
> > downwind leg. You of course knew this because you had read about traffic
> > patterns and spend 30 seconds googling the term upwind traffic pattern.
>
> What would a departing pilot be doing on the downwind leg?

Tony

February 15th 07, 10:08 PM

Touch and Goes and downwind departures come to mind.

On Feb 15, 5:04 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "John Theune" > wrote in message
>
> news:Ya4Bh.4061$103.2003@trndny05...
>
>
>
> >> Right down to the color of the departing pilots' eyes.
>
> > You must have incredible vision to see the color of a pilots eyes from
> > more then 1/2 mile away. The upwind leg is on the opposite side of the
> > runway from the downwind at the same distance from the runway as the
> > downwind leg. You of course knew this because you had read about traffic
> > patterns and spend 30 seconds googling the term upwind traffic pattern.
>
> What would a departing pilot be doing on the downwind leg?

Dave[_5_]

February 15th 07, 11:35 PM

> What would a departing pilot be doing on the downwind leg?

Departing downwind, perhaps?

Steven P. McNicoll

February 15th 07, 11:43 PM

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Touch and goes come to mind.
>

Not to a rational mind.

Tony

February 15th 07, 11:47 PM

Oh? I'm missing something.

On Feb 15, 6:43 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > Touch and goes come to mind.
>
> Not to a rational mind.

Matt Whiting

February 16th 07, 12:40 AM

Tony wrote:
> Oh? I'm missing something.
>
> On Feb 15, 6:43 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Tony" > wrote in message
>>
ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Touch and goes come to mind.
>>
>>Not to a rational mind.
>
>
>

No, Steve was just explaining why he wouldn't have thought of that. :-)

Mxsmanic

February 16th 07, 02:27 AM

John Theune writes:

> You must have incredible vision to see the color of a pilots eyes from
> more then 1/2 mile away. The upwind leg is on the opposite side of the
> runway from the downwind at the same distance from the runway as the
> downwind leg.

No, it is not. The upwind leg is aligned with the runway; it includes the
final and departure legs of the pattern (some people consider that it includes
only departure), and the runway itself. If you're on the upwind leg, you're
either landing or departing traffic, or you're about to collide with one of
these.

There is no leg on the opposite side of the runway. You're not supposed to be
on the opposite side of the runway. That's why patterns are designated left
or right.

An upwind join means that you are flying right into departing traffic.

> You of course knew this because you had read about
> traffic patterns and spend 30 seconds googling the term upwind traffic
> pattern.

_Someone_ needs to read a bit more, that's for sure. At least I can't kill
anyone in a simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tony

February 16th 07, 02:29 AM

You are completely misinformed again.

On Feb 15, 9:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Theune writes:
> > You must have incredible vision to see the color of a pilots eyes from
> > more then 1/2 mile away. The upwind leg is on the opposite side of the
> > runway from the downwind at the same distance from the runway as the
> > downwind leg.
>
> No, it is not. The upwind leg is aligned with the runway; it includes the
> final and departure legs of the pattern (some people consider that it includes
> only departure), and the runway itself. If you're on the upwind leg, you're
> either landing or departing traffic, or you're about to collide with one of
> these.
>
> There is no leg on the opposite side of the runway. You're not supposed to be
> on the opposite side of the runway. That's why patterns are designated left
> or right.
>
> An upwind join means that you are flying right into departing traffic.
>
> > You of course knew this because you had read about
> > traffic patterns and spend 30 seconds googling the term upwind traffic
> > pattern.
>
> _Someone_ needs to read a bit more, that's for sure. At least I can't kill
> anyone in a simulator.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 16th 07, 02:44 AM

Tony writes:

> You are completely misinformed again.

Show the error.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Theune

February 16th 07, 02:55 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> You must have incredible vision to see the color of a pilots eyes from
>> more then 1/2 mile away. The upwind leg is on the opposite side of the
>> runway from the downwind at the same distance from the runway as the
>> downwind leg.
>
> No, it is not. The upwind leg is aligned with the runway; it includes the
> final and departure legs of the pattern (some people consider that it includes
> only departure), and the runway itself. If you're on the upwind leg, you're
> either landing or departing traffic, or you're about to collide with one of
> these.
>
> There is no leg on the opposite side of the runway. You're not supposed to be
> on the opposite side of the runway. That's why patterns are designated left
> or right.
>
> An upwind join means that you are flying right into departing traffic.
>
>> You of course knew this because you had read about
>> traffic patterns and spend 30 seconds googling the term upwind traffic
>> pattern.
>
> _Someone_ needs to read a bit more, that's for sure. At least I can't kill
> anyone in a simulator.
>
What are your references for this information. Here are two that I just
dug off the net

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/57-38/Ch3.htm

EPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS COMPANY
1ST BATTALION (AIRBORNE, 507TH PARACHUTE INFANTRY REGIMENT
FORT BENNING, GEORGIA 31905

ATSH-TPP-HQ

071A0201

and Here's one you should really appreciate

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/howto/glossary.htm

Crash Lander[_1_]

February 16th 07, 03:00 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> No, it is not. The upwind leg is aligned with the runway; it includes the
> final and departure legs of the pattern (some people consider that it
> includes
> only departure), and the runway itself.
> There is no leg on the opposite side of the runway. You're not supposed
> to be
> on the opposite side of the runway. That's why patterns are designated
> left
> or right.
>
> _Someone_ needs to read a bit more, that's for sure. At least I can't
> kill
> anyone in a simulator.

A Circuit may be left or right of the pattern. The pattern itself is a
square (or rectangular) area surrounding the airfield with the runway
central to the pattern. Whilst a circuit is only half this area, the pattern
encompasses it all.
The pattern has 2 sides. a 'live' side, and a 'dead' side.
Crash Lander

Mxsmanic

February 16th 07, 03:07 AM

John Theune writes:

> What are your references for this information.

I googled for it.

However, after doing a search in all the FAA documents I have on hand, I found
_two_ definitions: one is a parallel course to the runway on the opposite side
of the downwind, and the other is the course over the runway itself, including
final and departure. The diagrams of traffic patterns in most of these
documents make no mention of an upwind leg.

So there does not appear to be a single definition for the term, unlike most
of the other terms referring to a traffic pattern.

One thing that is clear, whichever definition you prefer, is that you run an
excellent chance of running into someone if you enter the crosswind leg, be it
from a parallel upwind leg, or from the congruent upwind leg, or from anywhere
else that brings you across the runway centerline. I did find one page that
talked about an upwind entry into the crosswind, and it argued that if you are
at pattern altitude, you aren't likely to meet other traffic, but that seems
like an extraordinarily dangerous assumption given the variability of climb
rates, runway lengths, departure points on the runway, and so on. It's even
more dangerous if someone decides to go around.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tony

February 16th 07, 03:16 AM

Not for real pilots.

It's been demonstrated again you are in error. You exhibit quite a
high noise to signal ratio.

On Feb 15, 10:07 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Theune writes:
> > What are your references for this information.
>
> I googled for it.
>
> However, after doing a search in all the FAA documents I have on hand, I found
> _two_ definitions: one is a parallel course to the runway on the opposite side
> of the downwind, and the other is the course over the runway itself, including
> final and departure. The diagrams of traffic patterns in most of these
> documents make no mention of an upwind leg.
>
> So there does not appear to be a single definition for the term, unlike most
> of the other terms referring to a traffic pattern.
>
> One thing that is clear, whichever definition you prefer, is that you run an
> excellent chance of running into someone if you enter the crosswind leg, be it
> from a parallel upwind leg, or from the congruent upwind leg, or from anywhere
> else that brings you across the runway centerline. I did find one page that
> talked about an upwind entry into the crosswind, and it argued that if you are
> at pattern altitude, you aren't likely to meet other traffic, but that seems
> like an extraordinarily dangerous assumption given the variability of climb
> rates, runway lengths, departure points on the runway, and so on. It's even
> more dangerous if someone decides to go around.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 16th 07, 03:32 AM

Crash Lander writes:

> The pattern has 2 sides. a 'live' side, and a 'dead' side.

The terminology seems appropriate.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Crash Lander[_1_]

February 16th 07, 03:52 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I did find one page that
> talked about an upwind entry into the crosswind, and it argued that if you
> are
> at pattern altitude, you aren't likely to meet other traffic, but that
> seems
> like an extraordinarily dangerous assumption given the variability of
> climb
> rates, runway lengths, departure points on the runway, and so on. It's
> even
> more dangerous if someone decides to go around.

Ever heard of a radio? If someone's going around, and you're close enough to
be in their way, then you're a) going to hear their calls on the radio,
and/or you're looking for traffic anyway.
Crash Lander

Crash Lander[_1_]

February 16th 07, 03:53 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Crash Lander writes:
>
>> The pattern has 2 sides. a 'live' side, and a 'dead' side.
>
> The terminology seems appropriate.

Active and non-active. You know very well what I meant. Now you're just
being facetious.
Crash Lander

Mxsmanic

February 16th 07, 04:03 AM

Crash Lander writes:

> Ever heard of a radio?

Ever heard of NORDO? And even with radios, pilots aren't obligated to use
them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

February 16th 07, 04:04 AM

Crash Lander writes:

> Active and non-active. You know very well what I meant. Now you're just
> being facetious.

No, I'm serious. Flying on the wrong side of the pattern is dangerous.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Crash Lander[_1_]

February 16th 07, 04:20 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> No, I'm serious. Flying on the wrong side of the pattern is dangerous.

This is clearly not your bridge. Please get out from under it.
Crash Lander

Tony

February 16th 07, 04:29 AM

Here's a question for pilots.

You're flying a downwind to 05 at an uncontrolled airport called
Podunk that has a normal traffic pattern in the United States and you
hear and you hear on unicom "Poduck traffic, Mooney N 000 is entering
upwind for 05". Do you know where to look for that traffic?

Now, for those lurkers who know something about aviation : How about
you? Would you know where to look?

"On Feb 15, 11:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Crash Lander writes:
> > Active and non-active. You know very well what I meant. Now you're just
> > being facetious.
>
> No, I'm serious. Flying on the wrong side of the pattern is dangerous.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Crash Lander[_1_]

February 16th 07, 04:44 AM

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Here's a question for pilots.
>
> You're flying a downwind to 05 at an uncontrolled airport called
> Podunk that has a normal traffic pattern in the United States and you
> hear and you hear on unicom "Poduck traffic, Mooney N 000 is entering
> upwind for 05". Do you know where to look for that traffic?
>
> Now, for those lurkers who know something about aviation : How about
> you? Would you know where to look?

Well, he should be on the opposite side of the airfield to you, heading in
the opposite direction. As a precaution, if you could not spot him, you
could/should make a position call of your own, to let him know you are
already in the pattern so he can also look out for you.
Oz/Crash Lander

Roger[_4_]

February 17th 07, 08:40 AM

On 15 Feb 2007 20:29:41 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:

>Here's a question for pilots.
>
>You're flying a downwind to 05 at an uncontrolled airport called
>Podunk that has a normal traffic pattern in the United States and you
>hear and you hear on unicom "Poduck traffic, Mooney N 000 is entering
>upwind for 05". Do you know where to look for that traffic?
>
>Now, for those lurkers who know something about aviation : How about
>you? Would you know where to look?

Every where!

>
>
>"On Feb 15, 11:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Crash Lander writes:
>> > Active and non-active. You know very well what I meant. Now you're just
>> > being facetious.
>>
>> No, I'm serious. Flying on the wrong side of the pattern is dangerous.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jim[_14_]

February 17th 07, 11:34 PM

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:40:43 -0500, Roger >
wrote:

>On 15 Feb 2007 20:29:41 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:
>
>>Here's a question for pilots.
>>
>>You're flying a downwind to 05 at an uncontrolled airport called
>>Podunk that has a normal traffic pattern in the United States and you
>>hear and you hear on unicom "Poduck traffic, Mooney N 000 is entering
>>upwind for 05". Do you know where to look for that traffic?
>>
>>Now, for those lurkers who know something about aviation : How about
>>you? Would you know where to look?
>
>Every where!
>
>>
>>
>>"On Feb 15, 11:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Crash Lander writes:
>>> > Active and non-active. You know very well what I meant. Now you're just
>>> > being facetious.
>>>
>>> No, I'm serious. Flying on the wrong side of the pattern is dangerous.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
As I recall the AIM calls for entering the pattern at a 45 degree
angle to the downwind leg. That being said, If you are approaching the
down wind leg for runway 36, the downwind heading is 180, is it
acceptable to cross over the top of the field on a heading of 135 and
turn to a heading of 180? Or do you cross over the top of the airport
and do a right turn to heading of 225 setting up a right turn to the
180 down wind leg? That has always confused me. Thanks
--

Jim in Houston

Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full,
and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd!

Tony

February 18th 07, 12:21 AM

1 cross over well above pattern altitude, descend to pattern altitude
on the 'pattern' side, using the crossing over time to see what was
going on at the airport, then enter on a 45,
or

2 circle at some distance to get to the pattern side, enter in the
normal way

or

3 enter on the upwide side as mentioned elsewhere.

If it's uncontrolled with a conventional pattern, feel free to enter
anwhere on the circuit so long as you'll then be making turns to the
left, and announce, announce, anounce!

On Feb 17, 6:34 pm, Jim > wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:40:43 -0500, Roger >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 15 Feb 2007 20:29:41 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:
>
> >>Here's a question for pilots.
>
> >>You're flying a downwind to 05 at an uncontrolled airport called
> >>Podunk that has a normal traffic pattern in the United States and you
> >>hear and you hear on unicom "Poduck traffic, Mooney N 000 is entering
> >>upwind for 05". Do you know where to look for that traffic?
>
> >>Now, for those lurkers who know something about aviation : How about
> >>you? Would you know where to look?
>
> >Every where!
>
> >>"On Feb 15, 11:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>> Crash Lander writes:
> >>> > Active and non-active. You know very well what I meant. Now you're just
> >>> > being facetious.
>
> >>> No, I'm serious. Flying on the wrong side of the pattern is dangerous.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> >Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> As I recall the AIM calls for entering the pattern at a 45 degree
> angle to the downwind leg. That being said, If you are approaching the
> down wind leg for runway 36, the downwind heading is 180, is it
> acceptable to cross over the top of the field on a heading of 135 and
> turn to a heading of 180? Or do you cross over the top of the airport
> and do a right turn to heading of 225 setting up a right turn to the
> 180 down wind leg? That has always confused me. Thanks
> --
>
> Jim in Houston
>
> Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full,
> and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

DaveB

February 18th 07, 03:00 AM

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:52:17 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
wrote:

>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> I did find one page that
>> talked about an upwind entry into the crosswind, and it argued that if you
>> are
>> at pattern altitude, you aren't likely to meet other traffic, but that
>> seems
>> like an extraordinarily dangerous assumption given the variability of
>> climb
>> rates, runway lengths, departure points on the runway, and so on. It's
>> even
>> more dangerous if someone decides to go around.
>
>Ever heard of a radio? If someone's going around, and you're close enough to
>be in their way, then you're a) going to hear their calls on the radio,
>and/or you're looking for traffic anyway.
>Crash Lander
>
>
unless they dont have a radio
Daveb

Oz Lander[_2_]

February 18th 07, 07:48 AM

DaveB wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:52:17 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I did find one page that
> >> talked about an upwind entry into the crosswind, and it argued
> that if you >> are
> >> at pattern altitude, you aren't likely to meet other traffic, but
> that >> seems
> >> like an extraordinarily dangerous assumption given the variability
> of >> climb
> >> rates, runway lengths, departure points on the runway, and so on.
> It's >> even
> >> more dangerous if someone decides to go around.
> >
> > Ever heard of a radio? If someone's going around, and you're close
> > enough to be in their way, then you're a) going to hear their calls
> > on the radio, and/or you're looking for traffic anyway.
> > Crash Lander
> >
> >
> unless they dont have a radio
> Daveb

Then if they don't have a radio, that's an even stronger argument that
they should be joining a standard pattern, so other traffic already in
the pattern will already be looking for traffic.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Mxsmanic

February 18th 07, 07:52 AM

Oz Lander writes:

> Then if they don't have a radio, that's an even stronger argument that
> they should be joining a standard pattern, so other traffic already in
> the pattern will already be looking for traffic.

Someone going around _is_ in the standard pattern, since the standard pattern
always includes the runway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Crash Lander[_1_]

February 18th 07, 10:25 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Someone going around _is_ in the standard pattern, since the standard
> pattern
> always includes the runway.

What's your point? Standard procedure for a go around is full power, climb
to pattern altitude and step to the right of the runway so as not to inhibit
other users who may be taking off, and so you can see what is happening on
the runway.
Oz/Crash Lander

mike regish

February 19th 07, 12:28 PM

I'v eheard of the overhead break a lot. What exactly is it?

mike

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
> traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
> Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
> the ground fastest.

Tony

February 19th 07, 03:04 PM

A series of predetermined manoeuvres prescribed for the VFR arrival of
military aircraft (often in formation) for their entry into the VFR
aerodrome traffic circuit and for landing.

It looks like they are flying over the runway at or above pattern
altitude, then starting over about the numbers the airplanes in
sequence break off, do a decending 360 onto final then land.

, On Feb 19, 7:28 am, "mike regish" > wrote:
> I'v eheard of the overhead break a lot. What exactly is it?
>
> mike
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
> > traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
> > Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
> > the ground fastest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Peter R.

February 19th 07, 11:38 PM

On 2/19/2007 10:04:48 AM, "Tony" wrote:

>
> It looks like they are flying over the runway at or above pattern
> altitude, then starting over about the numbers the airplanes in
> sequence break off, do a decending 360 onto final then land.

Not meaning to nitpick but just to expand on this a bit, when the F16s at the
guard base on my home airport perform this maneuver, they overfly the runway
at runway heading and what appears to be about 1,500 feet above runway
elevation to the departure end in a single file, turn 180 degrees back to the
left downwind at what appears to be the same altitude, then about adjacent to
the approach end begin a sharp descent and 180 degree turn back to final.

--
Peter

john smith

February 20th 07, 02:53 AM

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> On 2/19/2007 10:04:48 AM, "Tony" wrote:
>
> >
> > It looks like they are flying over the runway at or above pattern
> > altitude, then starting over about the numbers the airplanes in
> > sequence break off, do a decending 360 onto final then land.
>
> Not meaning to nitpick but just to expand on this a bit, when the F16s at the
> guard base on my home airport perform this maneuver, they overfly the runway
> at runway heading and what appears to be about 1,500 feet above runway
> elevation to the departure end in a single file, turn 180 degrees back to the
> left downwind at what appears to be the same altitude, then about adjacent to
> the approach end begin a sharp descent and 180 degree turn back to final.

Overhead break with 3 second intervals for spacing.

Roger[_4_]

February 20th 07, 09:18 PM

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:25:52 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
wrote:

>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Someone going around _is_ in the standard pattern, since the standard
>> pattern
>> always includes the runway.
>
>What's your point? Standard procedure for a go around is full power, climb
>to pattern altitude and step to the right of the runway so as not to inhibit
>other users who may be taking off, and so you can see what is happening on
>the runway.
>Oz/Crash Lander
Here it'd be straight out to pattern height and then a cross wind to
down wind unless you end up passing some one.

>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Tony

February 20th 07, 10:13 PM

Is the step to the right something new? I might do that if the reason
for an aborted landing was someone taking the active when I was on a
mile final, but if I was on short final I'd climb straight ahead over
that traffic being pretty sure it wasn't going to catch up with me (of
course I'd notice if it was a hot airplane) , bend onto crosswind and
rejoin downwind considering other traffics' location.

On Feb 20, 4:18 pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:25:52 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Someone going around _is_ in the standard pattern, since the standard
> >> pattern
> >> always includes the runway.
>
> >What's your point? Standard procedure for a go around is full power, climb
> >to pattern altitude and step to the right of the runway so as not to inhibit
> >other users who may be taking off, and so you can see what is happening on
> >the runway.
> >Oz/Crash Lander
>
> Here it'd be straight out to pattern height and then a cross wind to
> down wind unless you end up passing some one.
>
>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com